Look who's side God is no now.

durangodawood said:

I dont think so. When Jesus declared all food to be clean, that literally is the opposite of what came before.

Its not unclean foods are still unclean as told in olden times, but you shant worry because of your faith in me. No, its all foods are clean.

Click to expand...

You misunderstand. The law, all of it is meant to be guide us to the understanding we cannot be good enough and to provide guidance and lessons. The law is broken down into three parts. Moral, ceremonial and judgements. All meant to show how we are not able to be righteous and how we are under judgement and what judgements we deserve. That a sacrifice was required in order for us to be able to have any kind of relationship with a holy God.

When Christ came he provided the sacrifice once for all and became the new high priest. And a new covenant was created through him. Those in HIM have received the new covenant. This does not apply to unbelievers.

Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness (for the law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw nigh unto God. And inasmuch as it is not without the taking of an oath (for they indeed have been made priests without an oath; but he with an oath by him that saith of him,The Lord sware and will not repent himself,Thou art a priest for ever); by so much also hath Jesus become the surety of a better covenant.

And the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly: that, as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: but sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the law sin is dead. And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died; and the commandment, which was unto life, this I found to be unto death: for sin, finding occasion, through the commandment beguiled me, and through it slew me. So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good. Did then that which is good become death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might be shown to be sin, by working death to me through that which is good;—that through the commandment sin might become exceeding sinful.


For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh. Else would they not have ceased to be offered? because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance made of sins year by year. For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith,Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not,But a body didst thou prepare for me; In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure: Then said I, Lo, I am come (In the roll of the book it is written of me)To do thy will, O God. Saying above, Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered according to the law), then hath he said, Lo, I am come to do thy will. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

For all have sinned and fallen short. Jesus said the world is condemned already. How do we know that. Apart from the law there is no judgement. It is is only by Christ that we are set free. In Christ we are set free from the first and established into the new.

durangodawood said:

It is important. If YOU believe various foods are still unclean, how can that not affect you if you partake of them? Or if you dont partake, then you go through life vigilant of various dietary restrictions. But if YOU do believe that, as Jesus said, all foods are clean, then you can dispense with that whole issue as a matter which might weigh on your conscience.

Click to expand...

Because I have accepted Christ as my sacrifice I am under the new covenant established by him and am no longer under the old law. It is as I said simply before. He is my righteousness now. Not myself.

rjs330 said:

You misunderstand. The law, all of it is meant to be guide us to the understanding we cannot be good enough and to provide guidance and lessons. The law is broken down into three parts. Moral, ceremonial and judgements. All meant to show how we are not able to be righteous and how we are under judgement and what judgements we deserve. That a sacrifice was required in order for us to be able to have any kind of relationship with a holy God.

When Christ came he provided the sacrifice once for all and became the new high priest. And a new covenant was created through him. Those in HIM have received the new covenant. This does not apply to unbelievers.

Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness (for the law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw nigh unto God. And inasmuch as it is not without the taking of an oath (for they indeed have been made priests without an oath; but he with an oath by him that saith of him,The Lord sware and will not repent himself,Thou art a priest for ever); by so much also hath Jesus become the surety of a better covenant.

Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 7:11, Hebrews 7:12, Hebrews 7:18, Hebrews 7:19, Hebrews 7:20, Hebrews 7:21, Hebrews 7:22 - American Standard Version

Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron?

www.biblegateway.com

And the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly: that, as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:20, Romans 5:21 - American Standard Version

And the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly:

www.biblegateway.com

For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: but sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the law sin is dead. And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died; and the commandment, which was unto life, this I found to be unto death: for sin, finding occasion, through the commandment beguiled me, and through it slew me. So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good. Did then that which is good become death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might be shown to be sin, by working death to me through that which is good;—that through the commandment sin might become exceeding sinful.

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 7:5, Romans 7:6, Romans 7:7, Romans 7:8, Romans 7:9, Romans 7:10, Romans 7:11, Romans 7:12, Romans 7:13 - American Standard Version

For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

www.biblegateway.com

For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh. Else would they not have ceased to be offered? because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance made of sins year by year. For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith,Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not,But a body didst thou prepare for me; In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure: Then said I, Lo, I am come (In the roll of the book it is written of me)To do thy will, O God. Saying above, Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered according to the law), then hath he said, Lo, I am come to do thy will. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 10:1, Hebrews 10:2, Hebrews 10:3, Hebrews 10:4, Hebrews 10:5, Hebrews 10:6, Hebrews 10:7, Hebrews 10:8, Hebrews 10:9, Hebrews 10:10 - American Standard Version

For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh.

www.biblegateway.com

For all have sinned and fallen short. Jesus said the world is condemned already. How do we know that. Apart from the law there is no judgement. It is is only by Christ that we are set free. In Christ we are set free from the first and established into the new.


Because I have accepted Christ as my sacrifice I am under the new covenant established by him and am no longer under the old law. It is as I said simply before. He is my righteousness now. Not myself.

Click to expand...

Whoa. Thats quite a response. I will give it proper attention later when I have the time, even if I continue to check in and make quick comments on other things.

ThatRobGuy said:

With regards to some of the OT dietary rules (that Jewish people still follow), I think the concept of "the God of the margins" applies to a degree. Where anything that couldn't be adequately understood for why it was causing an negative outcome, was attributed to "this is a sign that it's God's will that we shouldn't do this"

The explanation I've heard anthropologists give:
We know now that pigs can carry trichinosis (which is especially common in warm climates without refrigeration -- which certainly would have described their situation), the same applies to shellfish. That certainly wasn't well understood back then.

Back then, all they were able to observe is "whoa! someone ate pig, and 3 days later they were convulsing on the ground, vomiting, and their eyes swelled up" -- to bronze age people, a person with trichinosis would probably look like someone who had some sort of mystical curse placed on them.

...but like many things, certain practices become traditions after a period of time, and they just stick with it.

Click to expand...

I once suggested that line of thought to an Orthodox rabbi, and he jerked me short very abruptly:

"We don't obey God because it makes sense, we obey God because he's God."

Many of the laws do make sense in various ways. However, there is a category of laws called the Chukim. These are decrees or statutes that do not have an obvious rational basis, and are followed solely out of obedience to God's will. One example is the prohibition against wearing garments of mixed wool and linen.

Jews (at least the Orthodox) don't regard the Chukim laws as any less significant than the other laws.

IMO, a significant purpose of the Chukim and all the other laws is to create distinction...to make God's people a peculiar people compared to the rest of humanity. And I think that's a significant purpose of the Christian lifestyle as well.

Here is a true "war story" that gives me illumination on the subject: Back in the early 70s when I was active duty military, I was on my first overseas tour to a 3rd world Asian country.

Right off the plane, my military sponsor took me to a local restaurant for lunch. At the little restaurant, there was a buffet set with sliced meats. But my sponsor took me to a table where we waited for a server. I thought we were in a hurry, so I suggested using the buffet instead.

My sponsor said, "Oh, no! We don't know how long that food has been out there...it might have been out since last Thursday." Then he drew me close and said, "If the food is right off the ice, you can eat it. If if the food is right off the fire, you can eat it. But if it's room temperature, spit it out...it will kill you."

My sponsor’s advice—“If it’s off the ice or off the fire, eat it. But if it’s room temperature, spit it out... it will kill you”—lines up almost exactly with the spiritual metaphor Jesus used in the Revelation for the Laodicean church.

Hot food (off the fire) = spiritually fervent, zealous, alive

Cold food (off the ice) = spiritually grounded, refreshing, pure

Room temperature food (sitting out too long) = spoiled, dangerous, no longer nourishing or safe

To be room temperature, lukewarm, is to be the same as our surroundings. Spiritually speaking, lukewarmness isn't neutral, it’s corrupt. Like food that’s been sitting out, it’s not just unappealing, it’s potentially toxic. To be like everyone around us is corruption for people of God. To be cold or hot is to be distinct, peculiar, from our surroundings.

RDKirk said:

I once suggested that line of thought to an Orthodox rabbi, and he jerked me short very abruptly:

"We don't obey God because it makes sense, we obey God because he's God."

Many of the laws do make sense in various ways. However, there is a category of laws called the Chukim. These are decrees or statutes that do not have an obvious rational basis, and are followed solely out of obedience to God's will. One example is the prohibition against wearing garments of mixed wool and linen.

Jews (at least the Orthodox) don't regard the Chukim laws as any less significant than the other laws.

IMO, a significant purpose of the Chukim and all the other laws is to create distinction...to make God's people a peculiar people compared to the rest of humanity. And I think that's a significant purpose of the Christian lifestyle as well.

Here is a true "war story" that gives me illumination on the subject: Back in the early 70s when I was active duty military, I was on my first overseas tour to a 3rd world Asian country.

Right off the plane, my military sponsor took me to a local restaurant for lunch. At the little restaurant, there was a buffet set with sliced meats. But my sponsor took me to a table where we waited for a server. I thought we were in a hurry, so I suggested using the buffet instead.

My sponsor said, "Oh, no! We don't know how long that food has been out there...it might have been out since last Thursday." Then he drew me close and said, "If the food is right off the ice, you can eat it. If if the food is right off the fire, you can eat it. But if it's room temperature, spit it out...it will kill you."

My sponsor’s advice—“If it’s off the ice or off the fire, eat it. But if it’s room temperature, spit it out... it will kill you”—lines up almost exactly with the spiritual metaphor Jesus used in the Revelation for the Laodicean church.

Hot food (off the fire) = spiritually fervent, zealous, alive

Cold food (off the ice) = spiritually grounded, refreshing, pure

Room temperature food (sitting out too long) = spoiled, dangerous, no longer nourishing or safe

To be room temperature, lukewarm, is to be the same as our surroundings. Spiritually speaking, lukewarmness isn't neutral, it’s corrupt. Like food that’s been sitting out, it’s not just unappealing, it’s potentially toxic. To be like everyone around us is corruption for people of God. To be cold or hot is to be distinct, peculiar, from our surroundings.

Click to expand...

The parable of the Cambodian restaurant. I like it.

As for Chukim, when Jesus explains why all foods are clean, it kind of deflates the whole Chukim concept going forward. And from that point on its not seemingly arbitrary exterior rules that are meant to distinguish Christians from the rest. Its the state of ones heart.

durangodawood said:

Its not difficult at all. First of all, its clear: all foods are clean. Second, Jesus explains why all foods are clean.

Sometimes when you have a new fact dangling there in isolation we get suspicious. But fact plus explanation? That cant be dismissed except by invoking nuclear options like inauthenticity.

Click to expand...

I always hate it when someone tells me "its clear, its simple." It's really hermeneutically and critically not clear and simple.

2PhiloVoid said:

I always hate it when someone tells me "its clear, its simple." It's really hermeneutically and critically not clear and simple.

Click to expand...

Whats one of the complications I'm missing here?

durangodawood said:

Whats one of the complications I'm missing here?

Click to expand...

One complication is the debate within Textual Criticism about whether or not the extra comment about "all foods declared clean" was a later scribal addition to the original text. It would be great if we had a copy of Mark from either the 2nd or 3rd century to compare to what we find in the earliest manuscripts from the 4th to 7th centuries. But we don't, so....................

Assuming that the comment is something that "Mark?" wrote as an original feature of his text, we then have to think about why he would add that in if Jesus isn't expressly quoted as having said as such. Could it be a Paul-inism? It might be since Paul addresses this topic in Romans and 1 Corinthians chapters 8-10, although he deviates into tangential applications and reasons, all of which, however, still reflect considerations from the Old Testament. Of course, Mark could have learned this detail from some other 1st century source or influence as well, but we have no evidence of that.

However, just taking Mark's gospel alone, apart from the other two Synoptic gospels, we need to consider the overall context of the entire passage of Mark 7:1-23, of which Mark 7:19 is a part and acts as a brief epilogue made privately to Jesus disciples. In the main thrust of the overall passage we see Jesus's primary contention with the Pharisees and it was that they put their extrapolated interpretations on par with the Law of Moses, and Jesus complained about that. The main issue of 'clean or unclean' food discussed by Jesus appears to have had more to do with whether or not the disciples washed their hands in a ceremonial way, not so much with the "kind" of food being eaten.

So, it doesn't seem that Jesus was disinheriting the Law but rather amplifying its intended fulfillment and its application. It just so happens that Mark adds a little extra detail about how there is an insinuation about "kinds" of food that comes out by inference. Still, even so, the main focus of the passage wasn't about how the Law of Moses should be set aside for the sake of spiritual freedom, but rather how it shouldn't be set aside for interpretations built of too many inferences.

And this is likely why we see Luke representing (reporting?) what was decided by the Apostolic Church in Jerusalem as auxiliary spiritual provisions in Acts 15:19-21 and Acts 15:28-29. This would imply, at the very least, two prohibitions from the Old Testament that 'blood' and improperly handled animals should not be touched or eaten.

Of course, I'm always open to additional critical comments in case I'm missing something, but I can't imagine how early Christians would want to eat raw oysters or other shellfish anyway. That's a nasty habit. And a potentially deadly one to boot.

2PhiloVoid said:

One complication is the debate within Textual Criticism about whether or not the extra comment about "all foods declared clean" was a later scribal addition to the original text. It would be great if we had a copy of Mark from either the 2nd or 3rd century to compare to what we find in the earliest manuscripts from the 4th to 7th centuries. But we don't, so....................

Click to expand...

Well thats precisely one of the "nuclear options" I mentioned next: questioning authenticity. I'm fine with it, of course, and from my outsider perspective it seems a completely reasonable thing to examine. But many American Christians are bonded to a 100% word of God sense of the Bible.

2PhiloVoid said:

Assuming that the comment is something that "Mark?" wrote as an original feature of his text, we then have to think about why he would add that in if Jesus isn't expressly quoted as having said as such. Could it be a Paul-inism? It might be since Paul addresses this topic in Romans and 1 Corinthians chapters 8-10, although he deviates into tangential applications and reasons, all of which, however, still reflect considerations from the Old Testament. Of course, Mark could have learned this detail from some other 1st century source or influence as well, but we have no evidence of that.

Click to expand...

Sure, Mark (apparently) provides the summary conclusion. But Jesus' own words provide the reasoning, which is even more powerful. I admit that there could be a tiny bit of daylight between "clean" and "does not defile you". But one author or another of the Bible doesnt see it that way.

2PhiloVoid said:

However, just taking Mark's gospel alone, apart from the other two Synoptic gospels, we need to consider the overall context of the entire passage of Mark 7:1-23, of which Mark 7:19 is a part and acts as a brief epilogue made privately to Jesus disciples. In the main thrust of the overall passage we see Jesus's primary contention with the Pharisees and it was that they put their extrapolated interpretations on par with the Law of Moses, and Jesus complained about that. The main issue of 'clean or unclean' food discussed by Jesus appears to have had more to do with whether or not the disciples washed their hands in a ceremonial way, not so much with the "kind" of food being eaten.

Click to expand...

Yes, handwashing appears to be the particular defilement in question at the moment. But then Jesus generalized from that to a larger principle.

2PhiloVoid said:

So, it doesn't seem that Jesus was disinheriting the Law but rather amplifying its intended fulfillment and its application. It just so happens that Mark adds a little extra detail about how there is an insinuation about "kinds" of food that comes out by inference. Still, even so, the main focus of the passage wasn't about how the Law of Moses should be set aside for the sake of spiritual freedom, but rather how it shouldn't be set aside for interpretations built of too many inferences.

And this is likely why we see Luke representing (reporting?) what was decided by the Apostolic Church in Jerusalem as auxiliary spiritual provisions in Acts 15:19-21 and Acts 15:28-29. This would imply, at the very least, two prohibitions from the Old Testament that 'blood' and improperly handled animals should not be touched or eaten.

Click to expand...

Yes they did not seem to be inclined to leave behind all of the old laws.
.

2PhiloVoid said:

Of course, I'm always open to additional critical comments in case I'm missing something, but I can't imagine how early Christians would want to eat raw oysters or other shellfish anyway. That's a nasty habit. And a potentially deadly one to boot.

Click to expand...

Mmmm. Shellfish! Clean and delicious!

rjs330 said:

.....For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: but sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the law sin is dead.....

Click to expand...

Clearly the whole of the old laws were not meant to be obsolete. Coveting. Adultery. Murder. Of course these would still be wrong. But we can see how the reasoning of Jesus led one author of the Bible to conclude that all foods are now clean, which really is contradictory to certain old laws.

rjs330 said:

For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh. Else would they not have ceased to be offered? because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance made of sins year by year. For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith,Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not,But a body didst thou prepare for me; In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure: Then said I, Lo, I am come (In the roll of the book it is written of me)To do thy will, O God. Saying above, Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered according to the law), then hath he said, Lo, I am come to do thy will. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 10:1, Hebrews 10:2, Hebrews 10:3, Hebrews 10:4, Hebrews 10:5, Hebrews 10:6, Hebrews 10:7, Hebrews 10:8, Hebrews 10:9, Hebrews 10:10 - American Standard Version

For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh.

www.biblegateway.com

For all have sinned and fallen short. Jesus said the world is condemned already. How do we know that. Apart from the law there is no judgement. It is is only by Christ that we are set free. In Christ we are set free from the first and established into the new.

Click to expand...

Well if we stipulate that all foods are indeed clean (as it says), there are plenty of other sins remaining that humans do. But I do think that when Jesus summed up all the commandments into just two, he really was shifting the emphasis from rote obedience and toward cultivating a good heart.

rjs330 said:

Because I have accepted Christ as my sacrifice I am under the new covenant established by him and am no longer under the old law. It is as I said simply before. He is my righteousness now. Not myself.

Click to expand...

Surely you are still conscious of good and bad behavior. You havent transferred your conscience completely onto Him?

durangodawood said:

The larger point is that some Christians are deeply attached to a fixed notion of morality across all eras described in the Bible. Morality being the description of how humans should behave. Others see the Bible describing an evolving understanding of morality.

Click to expand...

Under the new covenant there remain morality laws.

rjs330 said:

Under the new covenant there remain morality laws.

Click to expand...

For sure. As I noted, evolving morality doesnt mean everything gets turned upside down. For instance, its completely reasonable that murder remains forbidden.