Where do You Draw the Line?

Where do you draw the line?

  • I belive that all of YHWH's instructions must be honored as they apply.

    Votes: 11 50.0%
  • I belive that only those instructions that were quoted in the Gospels are applicable.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I belive that only those instructions that were quoted in the Gospels , plus the Ten Commandments.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I belive only those instructions which are quoted in the NT are applicable.

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • I belive only those instructions which are quoted in the NT, plus the Ten commandments.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I believe that we are saved by grace; and we can do whatever we want.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other: explain

    Votes: 10 45.5%

  • Total voters
    22

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Where do you draw the line in obedience to YHWH?

These are some of Yahshua's words on the subject

(CLV) Lk 16:17
Yet it is easier for heaven and earth to pass by than for one serif of the law to fall.

(CLV) Mt 7:21
"Not everyone saying to Me `Lord! Lord!' will be entering into the kingdom of the heavens, but he who is doing the will of My Father Who is in the heavens.
(CLV) Mt 7:22
Many will be declaring to Me in that day, `Lord! Lord! Was it not in Your name that we prophesy, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name do many powerful deeds?'
(CLV) Mt 7:23
And then shall I be avowing to them that `I never knew you! Depart from Me, workers of lawlessness!'

(CLV) Mt 5:19
"Whosoever, then, should be annulling one of the least of these precepts, and should be teaching men thus, the least in the kingdom of the heavens shall he be called. Yet whoever should be doing and teaching them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.

(CLV) Mt 24:12
And, because of the multiplication of lawlessness, the love of many shall be cooling.
(CLV) Mt 24:13
Yet he who endures to the consummation, he shall be saved.

(CLV) Mt 13:41
The Son of Mankind shall be dispatching His messengers, and they shall be culling out of His kingdom all the snares and those doing lawlessness,

Good thread HARK! My vote here is in MATTHEW 4:4 Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. (although I did not vote).
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
55,168
8,129
US
✟1,096,346.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Saying that we are required to do good works would only promoting a works-based salvation if the purpose for doing those good works was in order to earn our salvation, however, that was never the goal of why God commanded His people to do good works. In Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, so our salvation does involve doing good works, but that is itself the content of God's free gift of salvation, not something done to earn it. In Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them so God's law is His instructions for how to know Christ and our obedience to the law is salvation issue, though again it is not done for the purpose of earning our salvation. In John 6:40, those who believe in Christ will have eternal life, and John 17:3, eternal life is knowing God and Jesus, in Romans 2:7, he will give eternal life to each according to his works to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, In Romans 6:23, the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord, and in Matthew 19:17, the way to enter eternal life is by obeying the commandments, so doing good works in obedience to God's commandments is itself the content of the free gift of eternal life.

Not once does the Bible refer to those who submitted to God's law as having hard hearts, but rather it is always refers to those who refuse to submit to it. For example, in Ezekiel 36:26-27, the New Covenant involves God taking away our hearts of stone, giving us hearts of flesh, and sending His Spirit to lead us to obey His law. Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law by spending his ministry teaching his followers how to obey it by word and by example and did not establish the New Covenant in order to undermine anything that he spent his ministry teaching, but rather the New Covenant still involves following God's law (Jeremiah 31:33). It involves God putting His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts so that we will obey it, not so that we will have an excuse to refuse to submit to it.

God's nature is truth, God's law is truth because it is His instructions for how to express His nature (Psalms 119:24), and Jesus is the same truth made flesh (John 14:6) because he is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3), which he expressed through living in sinless obedience to God's law. So those who are teaching follow Christ's example of obedience to God's law are not blind to the truth, but just the opposite. In 2 Timothy 3:8, those who oppose Moses also oppose the truth, being of corrupted minds and disqualified in regard to the faith. In Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have minds set on the flesh who refuse to submit to God's law. If you think that I've taken any of the verses that I've cited out of context, then by all means please explain the correct context.

As usual you've brought up many valuable points in your post.

I especially enjoyed the point you made about those who oppose Moses also oppose the truth.

Do you suppose that Paul is talking about Moses, or about the Torah. Often Moses is used interchangeably with the Torah.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Soyeong
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
55,168
8,129
US
✟1,096,346.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Good thread HARK! My vote here is in MATTHEW 4:4 Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. (although I did not vote).

Hallelu Yah!

Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! :)
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: LoveGodsWord
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
55,168
8,129
US
✟1,096,346.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Good thread HARK! My vote here is in MATTHEW 4:4 Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

When Yahshua said that, not one jot nor tittle of the Gospels, nor the Epistles existed; but we could find those words in the Torah.

(CLV) Dt 8:3
So He made you humble and let you hunger; then He fed you with the manna which neither you had known, nor had your fathers known, that He might make you realize that not on bread alone shall the human live, for by every utterance from the mouth of Yahweh shall the human live.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

NBB

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
3,564
1,546
44
Uruguay
✟452,402.00
Country
Uruguay
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Paul spoke about multiple different categories of law, such the law of God, the law of sin, and works of the law, so it is important to correctly identify which law he was referring to. For example, in Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law that is of works with a law that is of faith, and in Romans 7:25, he contrasted the law of God with the law of sin. Paul was not an enemy of God, so he should not be misinterpreted as speaking against obeying His law, though there were other laws that he did speak against. Christ set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses and did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced, so it doesn't even make sense for someone to want to follow Christ while refusing to follow what he taught by word and by example.

So what is your take on: eat everything that is being sold in the butcher shop without problems of conscience? this is a very plain text, how do you tweak it to mean another thing?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,433
4,605
Hudson
✟283,922.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
As usual you've brought up many valuable points in your post.

I especially enjoyed the point you made about those who oppose Moses also oppose the truth.

Do you suppose that Paul is talking about Moses, or about the Torah. Often Moses is used interchangeably with the Torah.

Thank you. In 2 Timothy 3:1-7, Paul lists things that are against the Torah and says they are never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth, and again in Psalms 119:142, the Torah is truth, in Matthew 7:21-23, the Torah is the way to know Christ, and in John 14:6, Christ is the truth. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Paul referred to the Torah as being profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. So I'd say that this is an instance where Moses is used interchangeably with the Torah.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HARK!
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,433
4,605
Hudson
✟283,922.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
So what your take on: eat everythiing that being sold in the butcher shop without problems of conscience? this is a very plain text, how do you tweak it to mean another thing?

In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul was speaking in regard to idolatry and more specifically in regard to whether it is permissible to eat meat that had been offered to idols. In verses 14-21, we are not permitted to participate in pagan ceremonies by eating meat from the altar that had been offered to idols. The problem is that meat that this meat was often sold on the market after the pagan ceremony was over, so in verses 25-29, we should not raise any questions on the ground of conscience in regard to whether or not meat sold on the market had previously been offered to idols unless someone tells us it had been previously been offered to idols, in which case we should not eat of it for their sake.
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,732
10,038
78
Auckland
✟379,528.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Righteousness is a character trait of God that is straightforwardly expressed by doing what is righteous and God's law is His instructions for how to express that character trait, not for how to attain it. For example, God's law reveals that it is righteous to help the poor, but no amount of helping to the poor will ever cause someone to become righteous because the one and only way that there has ever been to become righteous is by grace through faith. When we have a character trait, then we will express it through our actions, so when God declares us to be righteous, He is also declaring us to be someone who practiced righteousness in obedience to His instructions for how to do that found in His law. Jesus expressed His righteousness through his obedience to the Mosaic Law, so that is also what it looks like when we are clothed in his righteousness. In 1 John 3:4-10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to God's law are not children of God. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17, OT Scripture is profitable for training in righteousness. Practicing/training in righteousness in obedience to God's law was never about trying to having a good enough performance to become righteous, but rather that is that is what it looks like when God has made us righteous. In other words, the reason why we have received the righteousness of Christ was not in order to hide it under a bushel, but in order to let it shine through our obedience in accordance with the example of obedience to the law that Christ set for us to follow.



In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus summarized the Mosaic Law as being about how to love God and our neighbor, so that is how he expressed his love and how we are to love as he loved. Our actions flow from what is within. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, so Jesus did not do that, but even if he had, then that at the very least we should obey the Mosaic Law plus whatever it is that you think that he raised the bar to. However, Jesus was not in disagreement with the Father about where the bar should be, and did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced, so again he did not change it. All throughout the Bible, God wanted His people to repent and to return to obedience to His law, and even Christ began his ministry with that message, so Paul should not be interpreted as teaching us against following Christ.

Why do you respond to me with a whole lot of stuff I never said?

All I said was this...
======================
Obedience then is all about responding to the Love of Jesus within not the written Law without.

This is in fact a much higher bar.

Like Paul I am worried that some of you have slipped back under the Law.
======================

Lets keep it simple...

Let's not assume I am saying what I am not.

Paul teaching against Christ - what a nonsense.

How about responding to my three sentences with a short concise comment...

What exactly are you defending ?

In what way had the Galatians erred?

Are we not clothed in the righteousness of Christ from the Father's perspective as He sees us through His Son's Blood?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bob S
Upvote 0

NBB

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
3,564
1,546
44
Uruguay
✟452,402.00
Country
Uruguay
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul was speaking in regard to idolatry and more specifically in regard to whether it is permissible to eat meat that had been offered to idols. In verses 14-21, we are not permitted to participate in pagan ceremonies by eating meat from the altar that had been offered to idols. The problem is that meat that this meat was often sold on the market after the pagan ceremony was over, so in verses 25-29, we should not raise any questions on the ground of conscience in regard to whether or not meat sold on the market had previously been offered to idols unless someone tells us it had been previously been offered to idols, in which case we should not eat of it for their sake.

He should have expressed himself better because
'You are free to eat anything sold in the meat market, without asking any questions because of your conscience'

means we can eat 'unclean food' that says the law we cannot, and that is my point, that not everything in the law is for christians.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
55,168
8,129
US
✟1,096,346.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
means we can eat 'unclean food' that says the law we cannot, and that is my point, that not everything in the law is for christians.

No it doesn't. That's jumping to conclusions.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LoveGodsWord
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

Jaxxi

Half-ready for Anything.....
Jul 29, 2015
2,149
698
Phoenix, AZ
✟50,046.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I'm not sure that I'm understanding you. Are you saying that the Ten Commandments aren't YHWH's law?

And, because of the multiplication of lawlessness, the love of many shall be cooling. You quoted this.- it has nothing to do with what we should and shouldn't follow

Yet he who endures to the consummation, he shall be saved - you quoted this, but who is consummating? I believe it is in regards to Jesus taking His bride, and it refers to the days of torture those who do not accept the mark of the beast will endure. During this time no one will die.

And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.”

12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. Revelation
14:11




What examples? Can you quote them specifically?
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,433
4,605
Hudson
✟283,922.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
He should have expressed himself better because
'You are free to eat anything sold in the meat market, without asking any questions because of your conscience'

means we can eat 'unclean food' that says the law we cannot, and that is my point, that not everything in the law is for christians.

In 1 Corinthians 8:1-3 and 10:14-31, Paul was speaking about the topic of food offered to idols and he did not directly say a single word about unclean animals, which is a completely different topic, so it is strange that you would try to accuse me of being the one tweaking it to mean another thing when that is precisely what you are doing by inserting the topic of eating unclean animals. Jews do not even consider unclean animals to be food, but only what God said was food in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. In 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, we are to use Israel's disobedience to God's law as an example of what we should not do, so it doesn't even make sense to interpret Paul as proceeding to speaking against obeying God's law. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying God's law, so even if your interpretation were correct, then that would just mean that according to God we should disregard what Paul said and stick to refraining from eating unclean animals. However, Paul did not have the authority to countermand God and he was not an enemy of God, so your interpretation is not correct.

In 1 Peter 1:16, we are instructed to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), so following those instructions is testifying about God's holiness, while eating unclean animals bears false witness against God's holiness. Likewise, in 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are included as part of God's chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a treasure of God's own possession, and it is contradictory for a Gentile to want to be part of a holy nation while not wanting to follow God's instructions for how to live as part of a holy nation. Christ followed the Mosaic Law, including refraining eating unclean animals, and following Christ is for Christians.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: HARK!
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,433
4,605
Hudson
✟283,922.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Why do you respond to me with a whole lot of stuff I never said?

All I said was this...
======================
Obedience then is all about responding to the Love of Jesus within not the written Law without.

This is in fact a much higher bar.

Like Paul I am worried that some of you have slipped back under the Law.
======================

Lets keep it simple...

Let's not assume I am saying what I am not.

Paul teaching against Christ - what a nonsense.

How about responding to my three sentences with a short concise comment...

What exactly are you defending ?

In what way had the Galatians erred?

Are we not clothed in the righteousness of Christ from the Father's perspective as He sees us through His Son's Blood?

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the Mosaic Law, so Jesus did not raise the bar.

Christ taught how to follow the Mosaic Law both by word and by example, so interpreting Paul as being concerned about Gentiles following it is interpreting him as teaching against following Christ.

The Galatians erred by listening to those who were teaching that they needed to obey their works of the law in order to become justified, but did not error in following the law that Christ taught by word and by example.

Christ expressed the his righteousness through his actions and what that looked like was obedience to the Mosaic Law, so that is also what it looks like when we are clothed in his righteousness. In Revelation 19:8, the fine white linen stands for the righteous deeds of the saints, so being clothed in righteousness is not an alternative to doing righteous deeds in obedience to the Mosaic Law. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law is what it looks like to believe in what Jesus accomplished on the cross (Acts 21:20), and it is through the blood of Jesus is what allows us to be clothed in righteousness.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 16, 2020
2,104
641
55
London
✟106,344.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There was plenty of occasions that Jesus made to show how wrongly people were going about doing the law. They were so full of evil and hatred that they could not stand that Jesus was helping people on a Sabbath.

the person that was stoned to death for picking up sticks in the Old Testament was one of the first martyrs in the religion of the Israelites. God gave that Soul a great honor, the gift of martyrdom, the gift of being persecuted by the religious and by Nation. That very thing that Jesus suffered. So God oked his death because it foreshadowed what would happen to Jesus.

in early Hebrew and Egyptian pictograph two crossed sticks had the meaning of a mark, sign, signal or monument, which is interesting because when we eat of our own tree (labor by thought to be) we receive this mark which is a signature/identity as in a husband not our own, and in the same manner to pick up our cross is to keep the law and the only means of putting off this old man ....
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Noxot
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,732
10,038
78
Auckland
✟379,528.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the Mosaic Law, so Jesus did not raise the bar.

It seems you have not understood what happened at the cross.

Jesus perfectly kept the Law - Yes - but after the resurrection He breathed on the disciples and they received the permanent indwelling presence of His Word in the person of the Holy Spirit...

No longer did believers need to refer to and be bound by the written Law as the Author of the Law was permanently within them bringing understanding on how to act in whatever life situation presented itself. This the Law could never do. So yes the bar was raised as such a specific living Law of the Spirit of life, personalised for each believer bought an accountability much more personal, sure and perfect.

Christ taught how to follow the Mosaic Law both by word and by example, so interpreting Paul as being concerned about Gentiles following it is interpreting him as teaching against following Christ.

Jesus fulfilled the Law in every respect for our sake as no one was capable of keeping every aspect of the law perfectly save Him. In doing so we were released from the consequences of failing to keep the Law as He broke the Curse that was given with the Law as recorded in Deut 28. Paul understood that obedience to the Spirit of God within was the new focus, Walking in the Spirit was a new discipline to be learned, and was much more exacting and demanding than keeping the Law ever was. This new Way was confirmed by the apostles at the Jerusalem Council as they ruled that circumcision, required by the Law was no longer mandatory.

The Galatians erred by listening to those who were teaching that they needed to obey their works of the law in order to become justified, but did not error in following the law that Christ taught by word and by example.

It is not clear what you are trying to say here.

What Paul was saying was that righteousness was a result of Faith, not a result of keeping Laws. And we know that faith comes from hearing the personal breathed word of Christ within us.

It worries me that the Galatian error is being taught here on CF with the Law being elevated higher than the Author Himself who prefers to speak His living Word in our hearts, for our own good, and is no longer writing on tablets of stone.
 
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

HIM

Friend
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Mar 9, 2018
3,973
1,745
58
Alabama
Visit site
✟374,241.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It seems you have not understood what happened at the cross.

Jesus perfectly kept the Law - Yes - but after the resurrection He breathed on the disciples and they received the permanent indwelling presence of His Word in the person of the Holy Spirit...

No longer did believers need to refer to and be bound by the written Law as the Author of the Law was permanently within them bringing understanding on how to act in whatever life situation presented itself. This the Law could never do. So yes the bar was raised as such a specific living Law of the Spirit of life, personalised for each believer bought an accountability much more personal, sure and perfect.



Jesus fulfilled the Law in every respect for our sake as no one was capable of keeping every aspect of the law perfectly save Him. In doing so we were released from the consequences of failing to keep the Law as He broke the Curse that was given with the Law as recorded in Deut 28. Paul understood that obedience to the Spirit of God within was the new focus, Walking in the Spirit was a new discipline to be learned, and was much more exacting and demanding than keeping the Law ever was. This new Way was confirmed by the apostles at the Jerusalem Council as they ruled that circumcision, required by the Law was no longer mandatory.



It is not clear what you are trying to say here.

What Paul was saying was that righteousness was a result of Faith, not a result of keeping Laws. And we know that faith comes from hearing the personal breathed word of Christ within us.

It worries me that the Galatian error is being taught here on CF with the Law being elevated higher than the Author Himself who prefers to speak His living Word in our hearts, for our own good, and is no longer writing on tablets of stone.
Hi Carl Emerson,
It seems you are trying to seperate the word which is the Law , the commandments from Christ. They are of Christ. They can not be separated from Him.

In the following text Do you see the parallel being drawn here by God through Paul?

Deut 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
Deut 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
Deut 30:12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deut 30:13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deut 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Rom 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above.
Rom 10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

Do you understand that the words promised in Deut 30:14 are in the present tense and are saying the same thing as Jer 31:33 but are being spoken as a completed act?

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Do you not understand that the Law mentioned in Jeremiah was understood to be the Decalogue but could also be understood to be the Pentateuch?

With that in mind reread Deut. 30:10-14 and give a moment of pause and consider why Paul through our Lord would paraphrase it in Romans 10:6-8.

What this really about is what of the word, the law, God's commandments have been put in the heart, mind and mouth through Christ and His Spirit.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: HARK!
Upvote 0

HIM

Friend
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Mar 9, 2018
3,973
1,745
58
Alabama
Visit site
✟374,241.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In 1 Corinthians 8:1-3 and 10:14-31, Paul was speaking about the topic of food offered to idols and he did not directly say a single word about unclean animals, which is a completely different topic, so it is strange that you would try to accuse me of being the one tweaking it to mean another thing when that is precisely what you are doing by inserting the topic of eating unclean animals. Jews do not even consider unclean animals to be food, but only what God said was food in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. In 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, we are to use Israel's disobedience to God's law as an example of what we should not do, so it doesn't even make sense to interpret Paul as proceeding to speaking against obeying God's law. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying God's law, so even if your interpretation were correct, then that would just mean that according to God we should disregard what Paul said and stick to refraining from eating unclean animals. However, Paul did not have the authority to countermand God and he was not an enemy of God, so your interpretation is not correct.

In 1 Peter 1:16, we are instructed to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), so following those instructions is testifying about God's holiness, while eating unclean animals bears false witness against God's holiness. Likewise, in 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are included as part of God's chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a treasure of God's own possession, and it is contradictory for a Gentile to want to be part of a holy nation while not wanting to follow God's instructions for how to live as part of a holy nation. Christ followed the Mosaic Law, including refraining eating unclean animals, and following Christ is for Christians.
Good morning Soyeong may you and yours have a happy Sabbath in and through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Nor did Paul say anything indirectly in 1 Cor 10 about eating unclean animals.
But some translations purport that he did in Romans.

Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Here is another translation.

Rom 14:14 I know, and have been persuaded in Lord Jesus, that nothing common through itself, if not to him regarding anything common to be, to him common;

Which is correct and why?
 
Upvote 0

NBB

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
3,564
1,546
44
Uruguay
✟452,402.00
Country
Uruguay
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In 1 Corinthians 8:1-3 and 10:14-31, Paul was speaking about the topic of food offered to idols and he did not directly say a single word about unclean animals, which is a completely different topic, so it is strange that you would try to accuse me of being the one tweaking it to mean another thing when that is precisely what you are doing by inserting the topic of eating unclean animals. Jews do not even consider unclean animals to be food, but only what God said was food in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. In 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, we are to use Israel's disobedience to God's law as an example of what we should not do, so it doesn't even make sense to interpret Paul as proceeding to speaking against obeying God's law. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying God's law, so even if your interpretation were correct, then that would just mean that according to God we should disregard what Paul said and stick to refraining from eating unclean animals. However, Paul did not have the authority to countermand God and he was not an enemy of God, so your interpretation is not correct.

In 1 Peter 1:16, we are instructed to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), so following those instructions is testifying about God's holiness, while eating unclean animals bears false witness against God's holiness. Likewise, in 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are included as part of God's chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a treasure of God's own possession, and it is contradictory for a Gentile to want to be part of a holy nation while not wanting to follow God's instructions for how to live as part of a holy nation. Christ followed the Mosaic Law, including refraining eating unclean animals, and following Christ is for Christians.

Corinth as far as i know is not a jewish city, so the butcher shop there would have all sorts of stuff, and Paul said they were free to eat them, this is the plain interpretation. Paul did a mistake expressing himself like that then? he should have been more careful then? because, 'you are free to eat corinthians any from the butcher shop' not a jewish city... so?
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
55,168
8,129
US
✟1,096,346.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Good morning Soyeong may you and yours have a happy Sabbath in and through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Nor did Paul say anything indirectly in 1 Cor 10 about eating unclean animals.
But some translations purport that he did in Romans.

Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Here is another translation.

Rom 14:14 I know, and have been persuaded in Lord Jesus, that nothing common through itself, if not to him regarding anything common to be, to him common;

Which is correct and why?

This chapter is often used by those who ignore the Sabbath too.

If we start at the beginning of the chapter; it will give us context. The context is not about being convinced in our own minds about which of YHWH's words to cherry pick from.


(CLV) Ro 14:1
Now the infirm in the faith be taking to yourselves, but not for discrimination of reasonings.

(CLV) Ro 14:2
One, indeed, is believing to eat all things, yet the infirm one is eating greens.

(CLV) Ro 14:3
Let not him who is eating be scorning him who is not eating. (fasting) Yet let not him who is not eating (fasting) be judging him who is eating, for God took him to Himself.

Not eating is called fasting.

(CLV) Ro 14:4
Who are you who are judging Another's domestic? To his own Master he is standing or falling. Now he will be made to stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

(CLV) Ro 14:5
One indeed, is deciding for one day rather than another day, yet one is deciding for every day. Let each one be fully assured in his own mind.

(CLV) Ro 14:6
He who is disposed to the day, is disposed to it to the Lord; and he who is eating, is eating to the Lord, for he is thanking God. And he who is not eating, (fasting) to the Lord is not eating, (fasting) and is thanking God.

10 times within 6 verses we see the word eating; but some completely ignore the word eating; and want to make this about the Sabbath. Nowhere was the sabbath mentioned in this passage. As a matter of fact, the Sabbath isn't mentioned in this whole letter.

This passage tells the readers not to squabble over which days to fast. YHWH gave no commands on which days to fast.

We can find an example of these set fast days in Luke 5: 33-35

Since When is the Sabbath a Fast?

Shabbat shalom!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: HIM
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

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,433
4,605
Hudson
✟283,922.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
It seems you have not understood what happened at the cross.

Jesus perfectly kept the Law - Yes - but after the resurrection He breathed on the disciples and they received the permanent indwelling presence of His Word in the person of the Holy Spirit...

No longer did believers need to refer to and be bound by the written Law as the Author of the Law was permanently within them bringing understanding on how to act in whatever life situation presented itself. This the Law could never do. So yes the bar was raised as such a specific living Law of the Spirit of life, personalised for each believer bought an accountability much more personal, sure and perfect.

In Titus 2:14, becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law is what it looks like to correctly understand what happened at the cross, as evidenced by Acts 21:20. Changing the medium upon which God's law is written from being on stone to being written on our hearts does not change the content of what it instructs us to do. The Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's law (Ezekiel 36:26-27), not of leading us to meet a standard that is higher than what God's law instructs. When walking in the Spirit leads us to keep the law, then that is still keeping the law, not something more demanding than the law. Even if it were the case that the bar was raised, then that would mean that we should at least obey the Mosaic Law plus whatever the bar was raised to.

Jesus fulfilled the Law in every respect for our sake as no one was capable of keeping every aspect of the law perfectly save Him.

According to Galatians 5:14, anyone has ever loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire law, so it is something that countless people have done, not something that something that the Bible ever says that he needed to do for our sake. Saying that Jesus fulfilled the law for our sake would be like saying that he loved the our neighbor for our sake, but rather he did so in part so that we would have an example to, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22).

In doing so we were released from the consequences of failing to keep the Law as He broke the Curse that was given with the Law as recorded in Deut 28.

While it is true that there is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ (Romans 8:1), those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6), so the fact that Jesus gave himself to pay the penalty for our sins does not remove our obligation to walk in obedience to God's law.

Paul understood that obedience to the Spirit of God within was the new focus, Walking in the Spirit was a new discipline to be learned, and was much more exacting and demanding than keeping the Law ever was. This new Way was confirmed by the apostles at the Jerusalem Council as they ruled that circumcision, required by the Law was no longer mandatory.

God commanded circumcision and the Spirit does not have the role of leading us to refuse to submit to God's law. In Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have minds set on the flesh who refuse to submit to God's law. In Act 15:1, they were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the problem was that circumcision was being used for a man-made purpose that went above and beyond the purpose for which God commanded it. So the Jerusalem Council upheld God's law by correctly ruling against that requirement, and a ruling against requiring something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against obeying what God has commanded as if the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God.

It is not clear what you are trying to say here.

In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law that is of works with a law that is of faith, so works of the law are of works while he said in 3:31 that our faith upholds God's law, so God's law is of faith, and was directly contrasted with works of the law. Paul's problem in Galatians was not with those who were teaching obedience to God's law, as if there was something negative about obeying God, but rather his problem was with those who were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become saved.

What Paul was saying was that righteousness was a result of Faith, not a result of keeping Laws. And we know that faith comes from hearing the personal breathed word of Christ within us.

In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law, so the law was never given for the purpose of providing the means of earning our righteousness, but rather the faith that leads us to obey the law is the same faith by which we are declared righteous, which is why Paul said in Romans 2:13 that only doers of the law will be justified, but did not say that we earn our justification by being doers of the law.

It worries me that the Galatian error is being taught here on CF with the Law being elevated higher than the Author Himself who prefers to speak His living Word in our hearts, for our own good, and is no longer writing on tablets of stone.

I have not elevated the law higher than the Author, but rather I recognize that the law was given to testify about the nature of the Author (John 5:39-40). The Bible often uses the same terms to describe the nature of God as it does to describe the nature of God's law, which is because the law was given to testify about how to express God's nature, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12). Jesus is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3) and what that looks like was a life lived in sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law, so all the works that he did testified about the nature of the Father, which is why he could say everything that he did in John 14:6-11. The fruits of the Spirit are all aspects of God's nature, so the Spirit has the role of leading us to express God's nature in accordance with God's law, but the bar can never raised higher than God's nature.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: HARK!
Upvote 0