Every jot and tittle

[expos4ever]

I am free to speak freely as I wish. It's a free country;

Yes, you are free to be judgmental, self-righteous, and sanctimonious.

Go nuts.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I am saying that if both the Father and the Son agree that the time has come to end the Law of Moses, then this could explain why Jesus "breaks" the Law - in so doing, He is symbolically declaring the end of the Law of Moses.

Jesus did not break God's laws. It's nonsense to suggest otherwise. God is good, and if He does not uphold His own standard of right living, then He could not have been our spotless Lamb to die for our sins.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I am saying that if both the Father and the Son agree that the time has come to end the Law of Moses, then this could explain why Jesus "breaks" the Law - in so doing, He is symbolically declaring the end of the Law of Moses.

1 John 3:5 says, "And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin."

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, you are free to be judgmental, self-righteous, and sanctimonious.

Go nuts.

So you have never judged anything criminal or wrong before? You have never gotten upset at a murder, or an abuse of a child, or some other bad behavior?

 

[expos4ever]

Jesus did not break God's laws. It's nonsense to suggest otherwise. God is good, and if He does not uphold His own standard of right living, then He could not have been our spotless Lamb to die for our sins.

Jesus says this:

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

Are you aware of the many elements of the Law of Moses that do indeed declare that certain foods defile?

So how is Jesus not directly challenging the Law of Moses?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, you are free to be judgmental, self-righteous, and sanctimonious.

Go nuts.

I did not write God's Word. God did. I am only the messenger. So please do not shoot the messenger. If you have a problem with His Word, you need to address what His Word says.

God's Word says,

"...God is angry with the wicked every day." (Psalms 7:11).

 

[expos4ever]

1 John 3:5 says, "And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin."

Two points: As God in the flesh, Jesus has the authority to replace the Law of Moses with the indwelling Spirit. It is certainly not "sin" for Jesus to do so.

 

[Ken Rank]

What? Why are you continuing to misrepresent? I never posted anything that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that I object to any of the NT commandments.

Sorry... just going by what you said. Next time be more clear. You said, "Does a Christian with the indwelling Holy Spirit need a written code to tell them that?" You are leading the question, the answer you want, the answer you believe, is no. You have even said you don't need God's law (you said Law of Moses but everyone knows Moses wrote God's words, the law of Moses is God's law). I simply pointed out... since you only need the HS and don't need the written, then you don't need the NT either. If that isn't true, then YOU clean up your statement and don't expect the rest of us to be able to read your mind. I can only read my wife's mind, just ask her. LOL

 

[Ken Rank]

No, we're asked to use critical thinking. Remember Peter's experience on the rooftop in Acts 10? God asked him to go against the Mosaic law (by eating "unclean" animals). Peter tells God "no", even rebuking Him by essentially saying, "No, God, I don't want to break the law".

That's basically what you're doing now; Jesus wants us to graduate into a deeper understanding of what it means to be spiritual adults developing integrity and wisdom, and you're still stuck in the old testament pointing to a list of rules to do all the thinking for you.

I told you, I am not replying to you. You don't desire to hear anything outside of what you believe.

By the way... go back and read Acts. Peter HIMSELF told us that the vision was about MEN not animals. God used something Peter knew well you make a point about MAN not catfish for crying out loud.

 

[Ken Rank]

Do you think the only role of the Spirit is to give you warm fuzzies?

First of all, when two Christians, two people with the same Father, have a disagreement, why does it always end up like this? Why can't we just exist with some mutual respect concerning where each is in Him today?

Second... I quoted Paul... 2 Cor. 1:22 and 5:5 says that the HS was given as a down payment... an earnest... which according to that Greek word means "more to come." Some down now, more later. So we don't have "it all," we have a measure of the Spirit to help guide, teach, and comfort... but we are still fallible and still in need of study.

No reason to go on here as this isn't fruitful and I am not looking to cause division. Take care.
Ken

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jesus says this:

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

Are you aware of the many elements of the Law of Moses that do indeed declare that certain foods defile?

So how is Jesus not directly challenging the Law of Moses?

He was not challenging it. Jesus was changing the Law (via by the commandment of His Father). Jesus did not speak of His own authority, but He spoke and did everything by the commandment of God the Father.

"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." (John 12:49).

Jesus offered a new way.

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

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Two points: As God in the flesh, Jesus has the authority to replace the Law of Moses with the indwelling Spirit. It is certainly not "sin" for Jesus to do so.

Jesus was actually following what the Father told him to say. So the change in the Law came ultimately from the Father.

 

[John Helpher]

By the way... go back and read Acts. Peter HIMSELF told us that the vision was about MEN not animals. God used something Peter knew well you make a point about MAN not catfish for crying out loud.

My goodness, talk about only hearing what you want to hear. The context is that Peter's stubborn adherence to the law was preventing him from fellowshipping with those who did not practice the same laws of Moses.

In other words, his stubborness regarding "unclean" food (and it was stubbornness by this time, because Jesus had already told him it's not what goes into the mouth that makes a person unclean) was stopping him from going into all the world to preach the gospel.

This is what hanging onto the old law will always result in; an ineffectual witness pointing in the wrong direction.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Remember: In Mark 7, Jesus clearly defies the kosher food law.

No it does not. Why is it that people like you can't read? It CLEARLY says they were eating without washing their hands...they did not ask why they were eating non-kosher food, because they weren't.

"And the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands?"

 

[expos4ever]

No it does not. Why is it that people like you can't read? It CLEARLY says they were eating without washing their hands...they did not ask why they were eating non-kosher food, because they weren't.

"And the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands?"

I have addressed this matter in detail in post 47. No point in repeating the entire argument. But I will ask you this question:

If Jesus is still concerned specifically with the addition of man-made traditions to Levtical food laws, why is He challenging the very premise of the Levitical food laws, which is that foods that go into the man defile him?

I will be very interested to read your reply.

 

[John Helpher]

If Jesus is still concerned specifically with the addition of man-made traditions to Levtical food laws, why is He challenging the very premise of the Levitical food laws, which is that foods that go into the man defile him?

To be fair, what they're saying is that the context was hand washing, and not food. But, that is the technicality and a perfect example of stubborn, Pharisaical attitudes. He says nothing that goes into the mouth makes a person unclean. The old bottles who want so desperately to cling to the old ways don't consider that. They see "hand washing" and, because that one bit of information suits their bias, that is all they will see or consider.

It is interesting that in this same block of text, Jesus quotes Isiah, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me". It's not a coincidence that this quote references mouths and lips.

These old bottles like to think they honor God with their stubborn hanging-on to the letter of the law, but their heart is far from them.

These dietary rules were never meant to be moral laws; they were health and hygiene rules for a time when people didn't understand microbes and parasites and sterilization. As what happens with most rules, the people became self-righteous about them, changing them into a morality test so Jesus set them straight. It's hard to let go of rules which you believe make you better than others, but that's the way it is in the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[Ken Rank]

My goodness, talk about only hearing what you want to hear. The context is that Peter's stubborn adherence to the law was preventing him from fellowshipping with those who did not practice the same laws of Moses.

In other words, his stubborness regarding "unclean" food (and it was stubbornness by this time, because Jesus had already told him it's not what goes into the mouth that makes a person unclean) was stopping him from going into all the world to preach the gospel.

This is what hanging onto the old law will always result in; an ineffectual witness pointing in the wrong direction.

His own words say it was about men. So that isn't me, that is Peter, take it up with him.

 

[expos4ever]

To be fair, what they're saying is that the context was hand washing, and not food.

And they are mistaken. Here's why: while the discussion starts with the topic of handwashing, Jesus steers it in a different direction. Again:

If Jesus is still concerned specifically with the addition of man-made traditions to Levtical food laws, why is He challenging the very premise of the Levitical food laws, which is that foods that go into the man defile him?

What those who disagree that Jesus is challenging the food laws of Torah itself are forced to do is this: They are forced to impose a completely ridiculous generalization: that if a discussions starts with a focus on X, it cannot then be subsequently directed to address a different issue Y. And this is absurd.

 

[John Helpher]

His own words say it was about men. So that isn't me, that is Peter, take it up with him.

If God wants you to witness to someone who eats shellfish, and you're like, "no God, I won't eat unclean food" and then God shows you shellfish and tells you to eat, there are two lessons there; 1) Your understanding of what is unclean was wrong, and 2) That wrong understanding was preventing you from giving the good news to "men". Both points are consistent with the context, but you don't want to see the food issue because that works against your bias.

 

[John Helpher]

What those who disagree that Jesus is challenging the food laws of Torah itself are forced to do is this: They are forced to impose a completely ridiculous generalization: that if a discussions starts with a focus on X, it cannot then be subsequently directed to address a different issue Y. And this is absurd.

You're preaching to the choir, here.