Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,773
1,309
sg
✟214,747.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The same God inspired them all to write His words down on paper. God is of one mind, so He would fill His writers with one mind.

Your premise is correct, but your conclusion is not.

The Bible contains
  1. different instructions
  2. for different groups of audience
  3. at different times
If all the writers are indeed of one mind, as you claimed, then Paul would not even bother telling us to rightly divide the word of truth when we study the Bible 2 Timothy 2:15.
 
Upvote 0

Cornelius8L

Active Member
Sep 12, 2022
350
80
35
Singapore
✟42,129.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah. His wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 7 But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both well advanced in years.

8 So it was, that while he was serving as priest before God in the order of his division, 9 according to the custom of the priesthood,his lot fell to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. 10 And the whole multitude of the people was praying outside at the hour of incense. 11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing on the right side of the altar of incense. 12 And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.

13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. - Luke 1
The real New Testament began after Jesus's resurrection. No? Jesus' mother was also required by the law to sacrifice a pair of turtledoves after giving birth, according to the same gospel book you quote, which I thought you no longer taught. (Luke 2:24)
Then another angel, having a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, ascended before God from the angel’s hand. - Rev - New Covenant
Sorry, I forgot you read Revelation literally and think Jesus is a lamb, the animal. Not a symbol. (Rev 5:6)
 
Upvote 0

Leaf473

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2020
8,128
2,191
54
Northeast
✟177,940.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hello,

Would have posted it from last evening but the site seemed to be down. I am not sure I addressed that verse specifically but the sentiment was addressed.
Okay, well, if you decide to address Luke 11 specifically, I'm interested. It talks about things being clean, as opposed to foods, so I'm wondering how the approach you're putting forward works with that :)

Something from 1st Corinthians on my mind this morning,
Knowledge puffs up,
but love edifies.
 
Upvote 0

Cornelius8L

Active Member
Sep 12, 2022
350
80
35
Singapore
✟42,129.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The contradiction exhibited by these persons is further compounded by those who will eat of certain unclean animals but detest other animals in the same category. They will gladly eat of the swine, crab, lobster and shrimp, but would "kill" if given a meal of dog or rat, although the dog and the rat are in the same category as the others. They will quite explicitly state how detestable the dog is as food but quite happily consume the swine and others which should be equally detestable.​


To be continued.
Maybe you are too quick to say "these same people" don't eat dog and rat. How do you know "these same person" like me isn't interested in eating those?

And if what you say in posts #748 and #753 is true, then God's ordinance did not change after Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead. But doesn't it go against what Col 2:14–17 says? Col 2:14 was written in a way that made it clear that ordinance had changed, just like other parts of the NT. The real Error is not understanding the change that Paul worked hard to explain. Your analysis suggests that a part of the NT should be taken out.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Doug Brents

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2021
1,092
230
50
Atlanta, GA
✟12,053.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your premise is correct, but your conclusion is not.

The Bible contains
  1. different instructions
  2. for different groups of audience
  3. at different times
If all the writers are indeed of one mind, as you claimed, then Paul would not even bother telling us to rightly divide the word of truth when we study the Bible 2 Timothy 2:15.
This is true for the OT. However, in the NT age there is only one group and only one instruction; there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, slave nor free. All are equal in His eyes: equal in sin, equal in debt, equal in need for salvation, equal in what is required to receive His forgiveness.
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,773
1,309
sg
✟214,747.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is true for the OT. However, in the NT age there is only one group and only one instruction; there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, slave nor free. All are equal in His eyes: equal in sin, equal in debt, equal in need for salvation, equal in what is required to receive His forgiveness.

When you say NT, do you mean the beginning of Matthew, when Christ was born?
 
Upvote 0

Cornelius8L

Active Member
Sep 12, 2022
350
80
35
Singapore
✟42,129.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In this instance, yes. They were doing all they could to avoid offending those to whom they were attempting to witness for Christ. There is absolutely nothing wrong with keeping the traditions of the Law so that you can witness to those who think they are under the Law. But, as Paul said in the passage quoted above, knowing that you are not under the Law but under Christ.
Don't include the 12 or the elders or the believers in Jerusalem, they were not being hypocrites.
Jesus never calls people who act like this hypocrites. In Matt. 17:24, He did something similar to avoid trouble.
Matthew 17:24-27 After they had arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, “Does your Teacher pay the two drachmas?”​
“Yes,” he answered. When Peter entered the house, Jesus preempted him. “What do you think, Simon?” He asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs and taxes: from their own sons, or from others?” “From others,” Peter answered.​
Then the sons are exempt,” Jesus declared. “But so that we may not offend them, go to the sea, cast a hook, and take the first fish you catch. When you open its mouth, you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for My tax and yours.”​
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Doug Brents

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2021
1,092
230
50
Atlanta, GA
✟12,053.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When you say NT, do you mean the beginning of Matthew, when Christ was born?
The New Covenant books begin with Matthew, but the New Covenant didn’t begin until the death of Jesus. Jesus lived His entire life under the OT (the Law of Moses).
 
Upvote 0

safswan

Active Member
Nov 15, 2005
383
131
58
✟30,710.00
Faith
Christian


CLEAN OR UNCLEAN? - Part 2

Many persons, however, will say that Jesus declared all unclean animals as clean, in his discourse with the Pharisees as is found in Mark 7 and Matthew 15, by saying:

"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man....but those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart and they defile the man." [Matt.I5:11,18]

Some new versions even add that in saying so, he declared that all foods were fit to be eaten [See, Mark 7 in Revised Standard Version, The New English Bible, Good News Bible.]

To understand this incident we must first recognize that this incident was in parable form and we must seek the point of the discourse rather than the surrounding incidents. [Matthew 15:15; Mark 7:17] The aim of Jesus is to let the Pharisees understand what is the source of sin, not what is or is not sin. This is more clearly seen in a similar, if not the same, incident recorded in Luke 11:37-42, where he rebuked the Pharisees for making only the outside free from dirt (clean) but the inside (heart); "Is full of ravening and wickedness." He encouraged them to make the heart clean and all would be clean (verse 41) and to be concerned about both areas not just outward appearances.[Luke 11:42]

Luke 11:
37And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat.
38And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.
39And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.
40Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?

The other passages also had a similar sentiment and was not concerned about the food being eaten but with the fact that Jesus was eating without washing the dirt off His hands.


Matthew 15:
1Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

Mark 7:
1Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
2And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

Hence, what Jesus is saying is that; the source of sin is in the heart and that dirty hands does not make the heart dirty, because this dirt is passed out into the draught (excrement), but it is the "dirt" in the heart which causes sin. This is echoed and is more easily understood in James 1:14-17:

"But everyman is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin, and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."

So also, it is the lust for the unclean animals which is the source of the defilement which occurs when they are eaten. Dirt in the incident is used in parable form to denote sin or sinful desires and it is to be noted that the incident makes no mention of clean or unclean animals.

If Jesus had meant that nothing which goes into the body does not affect it, then we could all smoke, consume alcohol liberally, use addictive drugs, consume animal fats liberally, without them affecting the body or mind in any way and also consume unclean animals without them affecting the body or mind.

However, other passages in Acts of the Apostles and Revelation prove that this is not so.

In Acts 10 and Acts 11 is contained another event which some use, to say that God had declared all animals fit for food. [Acts10:11-13] But the response of Peter is most enlightening. He says:

"..Not so Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." [Acts 10:14]

This response shows that before Jesus came, while he was on earth and after he had ascended, Peter still had not eaten of any unclean animals and still had a strong aversion to doing so. He was also uncertain about the meaning of the vision, which he should not have been, had Jesus declared all animals clean. [Acts 10:17] It was the arrival of the men from Cornelius and their story which allowed Peter to understand the meaning of the vision:

"And he said unto them; ye know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." [Acts 10:28; Acts 11:18]

Hence in this vision the beasts represented people from all the nations of the earth whom God had called to partake of the promise of life for those who will repent and believe on Jesus, just as was promised. [See,Isaiah 55:5-7; Amos 9:11-12; Isaiah 19:20-23; Jeremiah 12:14-17.]

The other passage which confirms that animals were still classified as being clean or unclean, after Jesus' sojourn on earth, is found in Revelation 18:1-2, in which an Angel is describing the state of "Babylon the Great." The fact that the Angel uses the term "Unclean and hateful bird" shows that animals are still to be classified as clean and unclean, whatever this bird may mean or symbolize. It is to be noted that the purpose of Jesus' sojourn on earth was to sanctify man and not the unclean animals. [Titus 2:13-14; I Timothy 1:15; Luke 19:10]. The animals fit for food had already been set apart by God [Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14.]

In Acts 15;20, we see the Gentiles, who had turned to God, being directed, by the apostles, to be careful about what they eat. They should not eat of that which had been offered to idols, animals which had been strangled, (or died of itself) and to abstain from blood. If we could eat anything then they would not have been given these instructions. In fact these instructions are found in Leviticus 17: 13-16 and were given after it was known which animals could be eaten.

Hence these instructions which were taken from the law [See Acts 15;21] and which came after it was known which animals were fit to be eaten, must also have been given after the Gentiles had knowledge of what is fit to be eaten. The prophecy of the Gentiles being called to serve God, in Jeremiah 12:14-17, also shows that they are called to learn the righteous ways of Israel, not some new way or to come with their own ways. It is to be noted that these instruction about what to eat, given by the apostles, are not widely observed by Christians since they, in error, say; "Nothing you eat will defile you", contrary to the Apostles instructions. Note that Gentiles were exposed to the teaching of the law and prophets:

Acts 15:
21For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Acts 14:
1And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.

I could stop here and hope that it would be clear to all that we are still required to make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and that not everything is fit to be eaten. However, those who strongly propose the view that "nothing is unclean" would still be clinging to some of the writings of Paul, which through wrong interpretation cause many to be in error, [II Peter 3; 15-17] and which are used to justify their position. I will attempt to make these passages more clear and I pray, the Holy Spirit may give you the understanding needed to receive the explanations.

To be continued.

P.S. Comments like that below, is completely discredited by what the scriptures show of the encounter, which many use to say, Jesus declared all foods to be clean.If Jesus had declared all foods clean, then Peter was there to hear. Jesus obviously did not, and so nothing persons who reason like this, say, should be taken seriously. They merely come up with arguments to support their positions in the heat of the moment.


"I believe that God’s revelation of the New Covenant was still progressing. Peter did not know yet that God had made all things clean. This was as much a revelation to him as it is to you."
CLEAN OR UNCLEAN? - Part 3

In I Corinthians 10 Paul is discussing pagan practices and how they contrast with the practices of the people of God. In the law it was required of those who made sacrifices to eat them [Leviticus 7:6] and so too in the same manner we should partake in the body and blood of Christ the perfect sacrifice. [Matthew 26:26-28] The Gentiles also sacrificed and offered food to their idols and ate this food. [Deuteronomy 32:17] Paul was telling the Corinthians and us that although idols were not truly gods, food offered to them was offered to devils [I Corinthians 10:19,20] and because of this he is encouraging us not to take part in the ceremonies which involve eating these foods.

He is advising that, if we are invited to eat at someone’s house (unbeliever or Gentile) and we get food to eat we should eat and not ask if it had been offered to idols, but if that information was volunteered, (that it was offered to idols) we should refuse such food, [vs 27] also in the market (Shambles) we should buy our food without asking if the food was offered to idols [vs 25] he also encourages us to eat to the Glory of God and to do so is to eat according to the word of God. [vs 31]

No mention is made of clean or unclean animals because it is assumed that no consideration could be given to eating unclean animals. Note the admonitions in vs 5-11, as he called on Corinthians to avoid the sins of the Israelites as they came out of Egypt, [See Numbers 14:29,30; Exodus 32:4,6;Numbers 11:4,34; Numbers 25:1-18; Numbers 21:5,6; Numbers 16:41,49] we see that Paul is advising the Corinthians, and us, that these writings in the law were written for our admonition (warning or instruction) and what happened to them were examples (ie pattern) of what will happen to us if we make the same errors.


In Romans 14 we find another easily misunderstood passage. This discussion is not about clean or unclean animals but is about a non-issue i.e. whether one should be a vegetarian (eat herbs) or if animals (flesh) should be eaten by a person who is serving God. (See vs 2 & vs 21) Paul is letting opposing parties know that God has allowed both to be used for food and hence both practices are acceptable to God (vs 3). When he says nothing is unclean of itself, (vs 14) he is comparing the two things (Herbs and Flesh) being discussed. However, if a person does not like a particular one it is unclean to him i.e. it may affect or upset him.

This person should not be forced to use the food which is upsetting to him, nor should those who eat that which is upsetting to the brother do so in a manner which will cause him to grieve or cause him to be affected in serving God. (vs. 14 & 15) In vs. 17, he shows that to have peace, joy and righteousness is more important than to have unnecessary disputes over food and drink. In saying all things are pure, he is again confirming that both vegetables (herbs) and flesh are okay for food, but the person who is adverse to either will be affected by eating that which he is adverse to.

Paul concludes the discussion by advising the Romans and us to search the scriptures to have comfort (confidence) in what we believe as he says they were written for our learning. [Romans 15:4] Hence it is in the scriptures that we will find the solution to the dispute between herbs and flesh [Gen 1:29, Gen 9:3-5; Leviticus 11: Deuteronomy 14] [N.B. the terms "all things", 'nothing unclean' and "all things indeed are pure" must be in relation to the two things being discussed as no other subject is given and if they should be used generally then even alcohol, addictive drugs, cigarettes and the things discussed in Acts 15:20 etc, could be called pure also.]

In his letter to Timothy, Paul is addressing a similar problem to the above one with the Romans. [I Tim 4:1-5] Persons apparently were teaching that certain foods were not to be eaten, among other things. (vs. 3) Paul is saying these persons are wrong because the foods were created by God to be received with thanksgiving, ie. foods given to man, by God, to be eaten. (vs. 3) [Genesis 1:29;9:3-5; Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14] Every one of these creatures given by the word of God is good. (vs. 5)

The word of god is that which is said, in Romans 15:4; to have been given for our learning and it sets apart (sanctifies) the food to be eaten with thanks giving by prayer. [N.B. Prayer alone does not sanctify the food but the word of God and prayer.[I Timothy 4:5)]

Hence to just pray over unclean animal flesh will not sanctify it, the food to be prayed over must have been sanctified by the word of God. [Genesis 1:29;9:3-5; Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14] This discussion also was not about clean or unclean animals and once again Paul uses the scriptures (word of God) to settle the issue.

Colossians 2:16-17, is another passage which encourages some persons to say they should be allowed to eat what they want. However, the meat and drink mentioned here is not referring to food to be eaten, but to that which is offered to God as part of the offering and sacrifice ceremonies, which took place on holydays, new moon celebrations, annual Sabbath Days (Passover, day of atonement Feast of Tabernacles etc.) (vs 16;See Ezra 7:17] These offerings and sacrifices etc., were only a shadow of the real thing, which was the sacrifice made by Jesus of Himself. [Colossians 2:17;See also Hebrews 9:1-12; Hebrews 10; 1-10]

"These are the feasts of the Lord,which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord,a burnt offering,and a meat offering,a sacrifice,and drink offerings,everything upon His day."[Leviticus 23:37;Hebrews 9:6-10]

The gifts and sacrifices stood only in meat and drinks, divers washing and carnal ordinances. It is these "handwriting of ordinances which are against us", which are nailed to the cross. [See, Ephesians 2:15-16; Ezra 3:2-6; Nehemiah 10:31-34; Leviticus 1 - Leviticus 9]. These offerings and sacrifices could not appease God, as only the blood of Jesus could. Hence we do not have to partake in these ceremonies anymore. Hence Paul says, "Let no man judge you..."[Colossians2:16]

As we can see from the above, Paul uses the word of God (scriptures) to solve the disputes which come up about food, and at all times the word of God is quite clear about what can be eaten. One point of note is that the word meat as used in the Bible does not mean flesh but food in general. It is quite clear that God desired the Israelites to have good health and also the Gentiles who turned to him. The judgments meted out those who disobeyed and ate unclean flesh should be a sobering factor in this controversy.

Isaiah 65:3-6; - "A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon alters of brick; which remain among the graves and lodge in the monuments, which eat swines flesh and broth of abominable things, is in their vessels; which say, stand by thyself, come not near to me, for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire burneth all the day. Behold it is written before me; I will not keep silence but will recompense into their bosom."

How similarly the eaters of unclean flesh behave today, as they claim to be more holy than those who avoid the things God describes as abominable.

Isaiah 66:16-17 - "For by fire and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh; and the slain of the Lord shall be many. They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst; eating swine's flesh and the abomination, and the mouse shall be consumed together saith the Lord."

Revelation 21:8; - "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremonger, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."
 
Upvote 0

safswan

Active Member
Nov 15, 2005
383
131
58
✟30,710.00
Faith
Christian
Okay, well, if you decide to address Luke 11 specifically, I'm interested. It talks about things being clean, as opposed to foods, so I'm wondering how the approach you're putting forward works with that :)

Something from 1st Corinthians on my mind this morning,
Knowledge puffs up,
but love edifies.
The verse you cited was not in the portion of the study being referred to but the verses before were addressed. The fact is that food was not the subject in any of those passages.Luke 11,Mark 7 and Matthew 15.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Leaf473
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

safswan

Active Member
Nov 15, 2005
383
131
58
✟30,710.00
Faith
Christian
Maybe you are too quick to say "these same people" don't eat dog and rat. How do you know "these same person" like me isn't interested in eating those?

And if what you say in posts #748 and #753 is true, then God's ordinance did not change after Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead. But doesn't it go against what Col 2:14–17 says? Col 2:14 was written in a way that made it clear that ordinance had changed, just like other parts of the NT. The real Error is not understanding the change that Paul worked hard to explain. Your analysis suggests that a part of the NT should be taken out.
Well there are persons whom I know who do behave in the way I stated. Would literally kill if given the dog for food but will figuratively kill for the pig.

Part 3 of the Clean or Unclean series addresses Colossians 2, and explains which ordinances are now redundant.
 
Upvote 0

Lulav

Y'shua is His Name
Aug 24, 2007
34,141
7,243
✟494,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
He lived near the Jews, who lived out God’s commands. He couldn’t help know about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Possibly, but not very likely. The Temple was in Jerusalem. But Cornelius live in Caesarea, which stands quite a distance north of the Sea of Galilee.
An hour and a half by car. I'm sure he was called to Jerusalem for the High Holy Days and feasts as the city would be overflowing and problems could occur. According to historical data he was part of an Auxilary corp stationed there at the Procurators residence. Pontius Pilate lived there in Caesarea mostly, except during the feasts times as I mentioned, as it was the headquarters of the Roman province of Judea. He lived there From A.D. 26–36.
When the Procurator traveled to Jerusalem this auxiliary traveled with him.

So he would probably learn while in Jerusalem and learned about the temple and the place where the Gentiles were allowed.
Again possibly, but not necessarily. It appears that God also spoke directly to him.

You may, but I don’t see why. You are correct that He referred to things from the OT, but that was not His point. His point was the new interpretation of these OT passages into NT commands.
Commandments, not passages, he was intensifying the commandments he gave at Mt Sinai. More comprehensive but also very direct and explicit.

Everything changed at the cross, but not all the changes were revealed immediately to the disciples, not even to the Apostles. There are things, like the dietary laws, that don’t appear to have been revealed to them until much later.
It took 40 days and nights for Moses to be given the whole Torah. Yeshua also had the same time after the resurrection to teach these things IF they were true. He may not have done so before the Tree to prevent confusion for his disciples but he spent 40 days after with them and that would have been the time to teach this, in person with all of them together as finite witnesses.
Peter is NOT who/what Jesus said He would build the Church upon. Greek petros means the small loose stone (maybe a small bolder). Petra means the mountain of stone (stone that is not separated from the Earth). Jesus said Simon was petros, and on this petra He would build the Church. The petra is the confession given by Simon Petros that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God. It was a play on words.
This is what I said -- 'Peter whom Yeshua said he would build his 'church' upon wasn't privy to this?'

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. "

My statement was not about his name, but that if it was as you said:

Doug Brents:"I believe that God’s revelation of the New Covenant was still progressing. Peter did not know yet that God had made all things clean. This was as much a revelation to him as it is to you."​
How could one of the prime Apostles (Peter was with James and John at the transfiguration) not know about these changes? Doesn't seem possible.
Biology is meaningless to God. It is spiritual cleanness that matters to God. That is one of the reasons that what goes into a man (foods) does not make him unclean. But what comes out of him (from his heart/spirit) make him unclean.
The one who created all? Really? The LORD is not a scientist, He is the Creator.

I Asked 'Tell me how does God make a man clean? Does he change him biologically from whence he was created?'

You were answering to this and you said ----
Doug Brents:"Peter did not know yet that God had made all things clean."

Maybe I should ask you these questions,

1. why did the LORD distinguish between his creations of being Clean and unclean
2. how did Noah know to make sacrifices to the LORD after the Flood using only clean animals?
3. How were the unclean ones made unclean by Yeshua's death?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Lulav

Y'shua is His Name
Aug 24, 2007
34,141
7,243
✟494,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Let’s not take passages out of context just because the words say what we need to make a point.
“If his sons abandon My Law
And do not walk in My judgments,
31 If they violate My statutes
And do not keep My commandments,
32 Then I will punish their wrongdoing with the rod,
And their guilt with afflictions.
33 But I will not withhold My favor from him,
Nor deal falsely in My faithfulness.
34 I will not violate My covenant,
Nor will I alter the utterance of My lips.

35 Once I have sworn by My holiness;
I will not lie to David.
36 His descendants shall endure forever,
And his throne as the sun before Me.
37 It shall be established forever like the moon,
And a witness in the sky is faithful.

This is the path God will not change. And it was fulfilled in Jesus, as He is the King in the line of Davis who will reign forever on the Throne in Heaven!
Yes, it was because as he says here HE doesn't violate His covenant nor alter the words directly from his lips, Just as he spoke before over a million people in the wilderness His commandments.
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,773
1,309
sg
✟214,747.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The New Covenant books begin with Matthew, but the New Covenant didn’t begin until the death of Jesus. Jesus lived His entire life under the OT (the Law of Moses).

So, if that is the case, when you say "However, in the NT age there is only one group and only one instruction; there is neither Jew nor Gentile..."

What you meant by NT age, that age only began after the death of Jesus?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Cornelius8L

Active Member
Sep 12, 2022
350
80
35
Singapore
✟42,129.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well there are persons whom I know who do behave in the way I stated. Would literally kill if given the dog for food but will figuratively kill for the pig.

Part 3 of the Clean or Unclean series addresses Colossians 2, and explains which ordinances are now redundant.
Those you know are free to protect any animal they want, since there is no law against it, and it has nothing to do with salvation.

I'll try to make it simpler because what you wrote (Clean or Unclean parts 1-3) isn't new and has already been responded to by someone else, which you may have also read.

We know that the New Testament is entirely comprised of letters to churches, not parables (except Revelation, imo). If their letters require further clarification, as you have presented, the Bible will not end with 66 books. What you've shared here is rather clear-cut: "There are missing points in the NT that should be updated." For example, you suggested that the ordinances described in Col 2 do not cover all of the ordinances given by God. Perhaps you'll suggest that the term "law ended with the cross" (Rom 10:4) does not apply to all written law. Did I hear you correctly?
 
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

Lulav

Y'shua is His Name
Aug 24, 2007
34,141
7,243
✟494,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
The real New Testament began after Jesus's resurrection. No?
And here I thought you wanted to have a serious discussion about the prayers and incense, silly me.

Jesus' mother was also required by the law to sacrifice a pair of turtledoves after giving birth, according to the same gospel book you quote,
Yes, she was righteousness as well.
which I thought you no longer taught. (Luke 2:24)
I have no idea where you got that from, care to share?

Sorry, I forgot you read Revelation literally and think Jesus is a lamb, the animal. Not a symbol. (Rev 5:6)
So I gave you a place which comes way after the resurrection showing in heaven the prayers and the incense and this is your response? I would expect this kind of response from an atheist but I guess to some nothing is too sacred to use to protect their beliefs because of their own solipsistic desires.

For others who are reading this Rev says this:

And I looked,and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain,...
8 Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have
redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
10 And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth.”

Rev 13 speaks of this Lamb again concerning the anti Messiah----

8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


His purpose from the foundation of the world was to be the sacrificial lamb.


We see this with Abraham and Isaac where a lamb was substituted for his only son.
"And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.”

When Messiah came it was the Lamb of God the one Abraham said that God would provide.

"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"
"And looking at Jesus as He walked, he said, “Behold the Lamb of God!”
I would never sneer or disparage the one who was slain to cover my sins. So sad that others regard the Revelations of what's to come in that way.
 
Upvote 0

Lulav

Y'shua is His Name
Aug 24, 2007
34,141
7,243
✟494,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Jesus never calls people who act like this hypocrites. In Matt. 17:24, He did something similar to avoid trouble.
Matthew 17:24-27 After they had arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, “Does your Teacher pay the two drachmas?”​
“Yes,” he answered. When Peter entered the house, Jesus preempted him. “What do you think, Simon?” He asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs and taxes: from their own sons, or from others?” “From others,” Peter answered.​
Then the sons are exempt,” Jesus declared. “But so that we may not offend them, go to the sea, cast a hook, and take the first fish you catch. When you open its mouth, you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for My tax and yours.”​
They were collecting the temple tax. He probably didn't want to antagonize them since the time of his execution was neigh at hand. It had to be done at the right time.

22 Now while they were staying in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men, 23 and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised up.” And they were exceedingly sorrowful.
24 When they had come to Capernaum, those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, “Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?”
"But so that we may not offend them,"

The word used here is 'skandalizó' to cause to sin, a stumbling block.
 
Upvote 0

Doug Brents

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2021
1,092
230
50
Atlanta, GA
✟12,053.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
An hour and a half by car. I'm sure he was called to Jerusalem for the High HolyDays and feasts as the city would be overflowing and problems could occur. According to historical data he was part of an Auxilary corp stationed there at the Procurators residence. Pontius Pilate lived there in Caesarea mostly, except during the feasts times as I mentioned, as it was the headquarters of the Roman province of Judea. He lived there From A.D. 26–36.
When the Procurator traveled to Jerusalem this auxiliary traveled with him.
This may be true. But it doesn’t matter in the least. We are told what we need to know in Scripture: Cornelius was “a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and made many charitable contributions to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.”
Commandments, not passages, he was intensifying the commandments he gave at Mt Sinai. More comprehensive but also very direct and explicit.
Old Covenant commandments that He took, enhanced, and made part of the New Covenant. But throughout the NT, there is no commandment to keep the sabbath.
It took 40 days and nights for Moses to be given the whole Torah. Yeshua also had the same time after the resurrection to teach these things IF they were true. He may not have done so before the Tree to prevent confusion for his disciples but he spent 40 after with them and that would have been the time to teach this, in person with all of them together as finite witnesses.
Jesus told the Apostles that they would be given remembrance of what He had told them, and would be further instructed, by the Holy Spirit. Jesus had 3 and a half years with them, another 40 days of partial time and brief encounters, does not equal 40 days and nights uninterrupted. And some of the things the Apostles taught were not taught directly by Jesus during His life; they were instructed by the Holy Spirit directly to the Apostles when it was time to reveal them.
This is what I said -- 'Peter whom Yeshua said he would build his 'church' upon wasn't privy to this?'

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. "

My statement was not about his name, but that if it was as you said:

"I believe that God’s revelation of the New Covenant was still progressing. Peter did not know yet that God had made all things clean. This was as much a revelation to him as it is to you."
Obviously you could not understand what I wrote. The Church was not built on Peter. It was built on Christ Jesus. Jesus called Simon “petros“ which means a bolder, a small rock. But Jesus said He would build the Church on the “petra”; the mountain of stone still attached to Earth. God did not reveal all of the freedoms, gifts, and instructions we have in Christ to the Apostles all at once. This is evidenced by their need to take counsel about the Gentiles receiving the Gospel and what they needed to do to be saved, among other things.
How could one of the prime Apostles (Peter was with James and John at the transfiguration) not know about these changes? Doesn't seem possible.
Sure it seems possible. They were men, not God. They were instructed by the Holy Spirit with what they needed to know as they needed to know it.
The one who created all? Really? The LORD is not a scientist, He is the Creator.
I don’t know where you get your nonsense from sometimes. I never said anything about Him being a scientist and not the creator. But that doesn’t mean that he is more interested in the physical than the spiritual. In the New Covenant, it is the cleanliness of the soul that is of paramount importance, not the cleanliness of the body. God doesn’t care what goes into our body, because the things we eat do not cause uncleanness to the soul.
Maybe I should ask you this, why did the LORD distinguish between his creations of being Clean and unclean and how did Noah know to make sacrifices to the LORD after the Flood using only clean animals?
The distinction between clean and unclean was made at Mt Sinai, and was for a distinction between the Israelites the other nations. While it is a healthier diet, it was not mandatory before Sinai, nor is it mandatory after the Cross.
How were the unclean ones made unclean by Yeshua's death?
The unclean animals were made clean by declaration of God, just as they were made unclean by declaration of God at Sinai.
 
Upvote 0

Cornelius8L

Active Member
Sep 12, 2022
350
80
35
Singapore
✟42,129.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And here I thought you wanted to have a serious discussion about the prayers and incense, silly me.
Yes, we have no intention of deviating into prayers and incense. It was always about the differences between the Old and New Testaments. Perhaps Old covenant and New covenant are better words. In post#686, you mention prayer = incense. Then you offer two NT records to show that burning incense is still practiced. However, your citation from Luke does not support your claim because they are still in OC, including Mary offering sin offerings for giving birth (Lev 12:8).

The real New Testament began after Jesus's resurrection. No? Jesus' mother was also required by the law to sacrifice a pair of turtledoves after giving birth, according to the same gospel book you quote, which I thought you no longer taught. (Luke 2:24)
I have no idea where you got that from, care to share?
Please see below for my response to your post #537: So, do you preach that giving birth today is a sin, as the OT says?
Even if you are a man, this statement still applies to you because you are now contending for the law, and the law says that giving birth is a sin because God said so in the Old Testament, not because I said so (Lev 12:5). Sacrifice was paid for those who agree with the change in the law. Your OT laws and customs still exist because heaven and earth haven't pass away. If women can't make sacrifices, you need to find a priest, and if you can't, the OT law says that your sin is not forgiven.


So I gave you a place which comes way after the resurrection showing in heaven the prayers and the incense and this is your response? I would expect this kind of response from an atheist but I guess to some nothing is too sacred to use to protect their beliefs because of their own solipsistic desires.

For others who are reading this Rev says this:

And I looked,and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain,...
8 Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have
redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
10 And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth.”

Rev 13 speaks of this Lamb again concerning the anti Messiah----

8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


His purpose from the foundation of the world was to be the sacrificial lamb.


We see this with Abraham and Isaac where a lamb was substituted for his only son.
"And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.”
When Messiah came it was the Lamb of God the one Abraham said that God would provide.

"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!""And looking at Jesus as He walked, he said, “Behold the Lamb of God!”I would never sneer or disparage the one who was slain to cover my sins. So sad that others regard the Revelations of what's to come in that way.
Coming out of the abyys I think is real, so whatever does come out I don't think it's figurative, ppl may wish it to be but I highly doubt it.
This is a continuation of our earlier discussion in post#553 about whether prophecies are riddles. In this separate thread, your responses revolve around prophecies and Revelation to be read literally. In any case, if the "lamb" in Revelation is symbolic, why not "incense"?

And avoiding the facts does not make one holy. I have stated repeatedly that Jesus lied, and I have the courage to do so because I treat Him as a friend to whom I can simply express the facts about Him, unlike some who profess to know Him but do not.
Whether or not people think Jesus is a hypocrite depends on how they understand Him. In John 7:8–10, wasn't Jesus acting like a hypocrite? “God is not a man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and not act? (Num 23:19).” How can we defend the actions of Jesus, who should be carrying God's nature here, if not by the spiritual standard but by the human standard? We can only defend Jesus by saying that He was talking about what the Feast of Tabernacles meant spiritually(heavenly), not what it was like on earth. We can do this because we know that Jesus always talks about spiritual(heavenly) things, which is why His disciples always got him wrong. Jesus would have known that his brother was talking about the earthly feast, but he answered him concerning heavenly feast, "My time has not yet come," which would have made Him look like a hypocrite in the eyes of the people. But it doesn't bother Him.

They were collecting the temple tax. He probably didn't want to antagonize them since the time of his execution was neigh at hand. It had to be done at the right time.


"But so that we may not offend them,"

The word used here is 'skandalizó' to cause to sin, a stumbling block.
Let's not deviate from the main topic of our discussion. We were addressing the action of doing what they do not teach for conscious sake.
 
Last edited:
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

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,592
5,732
Montreal, Quebec
✟248,004.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
1. why did the LORD distinguish between his creations of being Clean and unclean
There is evidence that at least part of the reason was to distinguish the Jew from the rest of the world:

You must therefore make a distinction between ceremonially clean and unclean animals, and between clean and unclean birds. You must not defile yourselves by eating any unclean animal or bird or creature that scurries along the ground. I have identified them as being unclean for you. 26 You must be holy because I, the Lord, am holy. I have set you apart from all other people to be my very own.
3. How were the unclean ones made unclean by Yeshua's death?
I am prepared to argue that Paul believes that God gave the Law to Israel for a very specific purpose. Because the Law has this mysterious and counter-intuitive property of actually energizing and stimulating the inner sinful impulses of the Jew, the Law effectively draws - lures if you will - the power of sin into the nation of Israel. From there, it is transferred from the nation of Israel into the body of one man, Jesus. Sin has now been "tricked" into taking up residence within the body of Jesus. And then, "cornered" in Jesus, sin is then condemned on the cross.

On this model, we are not forced into the weird and arguably infantile notion that Jesus has to punish an innocent Jesus to forgive sin. What an odd idea that is. No, Jesus dies on the cross as a side-effect of God venting His righteous anger on the true enemy - the power of sin.

Why is this relevant. Well, with the victory won over sin at the Cross, God no longer needs to use Israel as the "lure" that ultimately leads to sin being concentrated in Jesus and then defeated:

sin in the broader world - > sin concentrated in Israel -> sin focused onto Jesus -> sin defeated.

The food laws were never about health, I suggest. There were part of a brilliant plan whereby God used the Law to mark out a special people - the Jews - as the people who would be used by God to defeat sin. With sin defeated, the entire Law, food laws included, has served its purpose and can be retired.

Notice how this model makes perfect sense of the text from Leviticus, above, where God says the food laws function to set the Jew apart from the nations. Yes, the Law indeed sets the Jew apart from the rest of the world, precisely since this is necessary for the plan to work. With the mission successfully achieved on the cross, the Law is retired with honor.
 
Upvote 0