Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,598
Hudson
✟281,625.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
If you keep the Sabbath, you cannot heat your house in the dead of winter on Saturday.

The issue of how to keep the Sabbath is distinct from the issue of whether followers of God should follow God. If I were not keeping the Sabbath correctly, then that would just mean that I would need to repent and return to obedience, not that we should follow God.
 
Upvote 0

justbyfaith

justified sinner
May 19, 2017
3,461
572
51
Southern California
✟3,094.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
The fact that 1 Timothy 4:1 describes what he was speaking about as the doctrines of demons should be a major clue that he was not speaking about the holy, righteous, and good commands of God. Everything in verses 1-8 is clearly describing pagan practices with the possible exception of teaching to abstain from eating certain meats. However, in Colossians 2:20-23, Paul interacted with people who were teaching human precepts and traditions, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body. In other words, they were teaching abstinence from certain meats that God said were good to eat in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. God's Law is truth (Psalms 119:142), so those who believe and know the truth know that we are permitted to eat those things and that they should be received with thanksgiving. We also know that God's Word has not sanctified unclean animals and that we should not receive with thanksgiving that which God was was an abomination for us. So every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused IF it is something that is to be received with thanksgiving that has been sanctified by God's Word.

The topic of Romans 14 is stated in the first verse, namely it is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of opinion, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow His commands, so nothing in the chapter should be interpreted as speaking against obeying God. In verse 5-6, Paul spoke about those who were eating or refraining from eating unto the Lord, so he was speaking about fasting. The only day that God commanded fasting is on the Day of Atonement, but in the 1st century it had become a common practice to fast twice a week or to commemorate certain events (Luke 18:12). Those who esteemed certain days for fasting were passing judgement on those who did not and were in turn being resented and this was exactly the sort of judging each other over opinions that Paul was seeking to quelle in this chapter. So whether someone fasts twice a week is a disputable matter of opinion, but whether someone chooses to fast on the Day of Atonement is a matter of obedience to God. Paul was not suggesting that obedience to God is optional as long as we become convinced in our own minds that it is ok to do, but rather he instructed us in Galatians 6:1-4 to gently restore those who are caught in sin.

I believe that Paul never spoke against anyone obeying any of God's commands, but the bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so when God has commanded something and you think that Paul said that we don't need to obey what God commanded, then you should be quicker to disregard what he said than to disregard what God commanded. No one had a greater authority than God, so no one has the authority to countermand Him or to tell us not to obey any of His commands, nor should we listen to anyone who tries to tell us that.
Luke 11:41, But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and behold, all things are clean to you.

Romans 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.

1 Timothy 4:1-6, Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy: having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

I don't think you are reading what it says at face value. You are reading your own interpretation into it rather than seeing what the text actually says and pulling out the real meaning of the text. For example, all means all, every means every, and nothing means nothing.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,598
Hudson
✟281,625.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Indeed, "all" means "all", "every" means "every", "nothing" means "nothing, and more importantly, "if" means "if". Paul was making a condition statement, which means that there is a condition under which everything should be accepted and nothing is to be rejected, and that condition is that it has been sanctified by the God's word. Unclean animals do not meet that condition and thus do not qualify under everything that should be accepted.
 
Upvote 0

justbyfaith

justified sinner
May 19, 2017
3,461
572
51
Southern California
✟3,094.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
It does not say "if" it says "For".

I am not going to argue with you about words, for that is unprofitable and useless, and is to the subverting of the hearers (1 Timothy 6:4, 2 Timothy 2:14). Suffice it to say that I hold my kjv to be inspired, inerrant, and authoritative.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,598
Hudson
✟281,625.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
It does not say "if" it says "For".

I am not going to argue with you about words, for that is unprofitable and useless, and is to the subverting of the hearers (1 Timothy 6:4, 2 Timothy 2:14). Suffice it to say that I hold my kjv to be inspired, inerrant, and authoritative.

1 Timothy 4:4-5 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, IF it be received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

If you don't want talk about how it should be interpreted, then let's talk about the consequences of what should happen if your interpretation is correct. According to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from what God commanded, so if Paul tried to do that, then he sinned and needed to repent. Likewise, according to 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 what He commanded, so that would mean that according to God we should disregard Paul as being a false prophet. We must obey God rather than man, so when God has commanded something and if Paul spoke against obeying God, then we should be quicker to disregard what he said than to disregard what Paul said. It should not be difficult to figure out whether God or Paul has the higher authority, which one we ultimately answer to, and which one we should follow. Though again, I do not think that Paul ever spoke against anyone obeying any of God's commands.
 
Upvote 0

sdowney717

Newbie
Apr 20, 2013
8,712
2,021
✟102,588.00
Faith
Christian
There is NO MORE OLD COVENANT, it has passed away.
God is no longer having anything to do with the Old Covenant.
We also have circumstantial proof, God destroyed the temple at Jerusalem. The entire animal sacrificial system is gone away for 2000 years now.
And we have absolute scriptural proof.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,598
Hudson
✟281,625.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
There is NO MORE OLD COVENANT, it has passed away.
God is no longer having anything to do with the Old Covenant.
We also have circumstantial proof, God destroyed the temple at Jerusalem. The entire animal sacrificial system is gone away for 2000 years now.
And we have absolute scriptural proof.

While we are under the New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, we are nevertheless still under the same God with the same character traits and with the same instructions for how to act in accordance with His character traits. For example, it has always been and will always be in accordance with God's righteousness to help the poor no matter how many covenants God makes, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to practice righteousness will always be valid no matter which covenant we are under, but as part of the New Covenant we are told that those who do not follow those instructions are not children of God (1 John 3:10).
 
Upvote 0

justbyfaith

justified sinner
May 19, 2017
3,461
572
51
Southern California
✟3,094.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Concerning 1 John 3:10, there is a difference between the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of faith (Philippians 3:9). New Testament righteousness is the righteousness of faith. Which produces the love of God in us (Romans 5:5) so that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us (Romans 13:8-10, Romans 8:4; see also Matthew 22:36-40).
 
Upvote 0

justbyfaith

justified sinner
May 19, 2017
3,461
572
51
Southern California
✟3,094.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
1 Timothy 4:4-5 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, IF it be received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

If you don't want talk about how it should be interpreted, then let's talk about the consequences of what should happen if your interpretation is correct. According to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from what God commanded, so if Paul tried to do that, then he sinned and needed to repent. Likewise, according to 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 what He commanded, so that would mean that according to God we should disregard Paul as being a false prophet. We must obey God rather than man, so when God has commanded something and if Paul spoke against obeying God, then we should be quicker to disregard what he said than to disregard what Paul said. It should not be difficult to figure out whether God or Paul has the higher authority, which one we ultimately answer to, and which one we should follow. Though again, I do not think that Paul ever spoke against anyone obeying any of God's commands.
I receive it with thanksgiving, it is not to be refused; whether it be clam chowder or chorizo and eggs or biscuits and gravy. 1 Thessalonians 5:18 says in everything give thanks.

Every creature of God is good, period; not only if it be received with thanksgiving. Thanksgiving doesn't make a creature of God good, it is good because God said it is good (Luke 11:41, Romans 14:14); but if it did, then thanksgiving sanctifies it and it is not to be refused; whether it be a carnitas burrito or a sausage McMuffin or a crabcake.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

justbyfaith

justified sinner
May 19, 2017
3,461
572
51
Southern California
✟3,094.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Because there was a change of priesthood (from Levi to Melchizedec) there was of necessity a change made also of the law (Hebrews 7:12).

The Old Testament list of rules no longer apply unto condemnation; now we are governed by virtue (Galatians 5:19-23)
 
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

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
If the Sabbath is still valid, you cannot heat your house in the winter on Saturday. Or cook for that matter.
That brings to mind these passages from the Olivet Discourse.
.
Why would Jesus bring up the "sabbath"?
I can see why winter would be bad during a siege or fleeing , especially for women that are pregnant or nursing...

Matthew 24:
19 But woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days!
20 And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on a sabbath:

Mark 13:
17 And woe unto those women who are pregnant and nursing infants in those days!
18 And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter

Luke 21:23
Woe yet to those in womb having, and to those giving suck in those the days;

Josephus actually describes an event during the 70ad siege of Jerusalem which a Jewish mother slew her infant child to eat......whether that is true or not, I don't know....

http://www.bible.ca/pre-destruction70AD-george-holford-1805AD.htm

The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover ;

Meanwhile the horrors of famine grew still more melancholy and afflictive. The Jews, for of food were at length compelled to eat their belts, their sandals, the skins of their shields, dried grass, and even the ordure of oxen.

In the depth or this horrible extremity, a Jewess of noble family urged by the intolerable cravings of hunger, slew her infant child, and prepared it for a meal ; and had actually eaten one half thereof,..................

At the recital of this melancholy and affecting occurrence, the whole city stood aghast, and poured forth their congratulations on those whom death had hurried away from such heartrending scenes.

Revelation 9:6
and in those days shall men seek the death, and they shall not find it,
and they shall desire to die, and the death shall flee from them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dave L
Upvote 0

Copperhead

Newbie
Supporter
Feb 22, 2013
1,434
442
✟208,325.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
There is NO MORE OLD COVENANT, it has passed away.

Really? Then we might as all well quit all this Christian stuff.

Why do I say that? Well, there are at least 5 major covenants in the OT. All of them valid and still in effect.

1) Adamic Covenant
2) Noahic Covenant
3) Abrahamic Covenant
4) Mosaic or Sinai Covenant
5) Davidic Covenant

It can be argued to some degree that the 4th is conditional and therefore doesn't apply to Believers, but even that is debatable, unlike the others.

All of the rest of those covenants are unconditional. God made all of them only conditional on His word and promise, not on anything that can be broken by Man. Only the Mosaic Covenant was a dual conditional covenant, and Israel broke that one and it led to their punishment and dispersion from the land.

For instance, the Noahic Covenant. The Lord said that He would never again destroy the earth by a flood. Period. Has no conditions placed on it. Either the earth will never again be destroyed by a flood or the Lord is a liar. I'll let you decide that one.

Another, the Abrahamic Covenant. The sacrifice of the animals being split in half was a ancient ritual where both parties of the covenant would walk between the pieces and recite the words of the covenant. The symbolism is that if either party breaks the covenant, that they be dealt the same way as those animals. Abraham was put into a sleep and the Lord passed between the animals on His own. That made it conditional only upon the Lord's faithfulness to the covenant. Abraham, including all his descendants, couldn't abrogate the covenant if they wanted to. It was a land covenant that is still in effect and will be fully realized during the Millennial Kingdom.

To add a little humor to that... the West Bank will take on a whole new meaning in the Millennial Kingdom. As opposed to the West Bank of the Jordan River now, the new West Bank will be on the Euphrates River in Iraq. The United Nations will have no input in deciding that.

The Davidic Covenant, that a descendent of David would occupy the authority of the king over Israel and all the earth. If that is no longer in effect, then what are we wasting our time on here. Yeshua is never coming back to rule over this earth. Of course, that is silly. He indeed is coming back to do a hostile takeover of the earth and will rule from Jerusalem in the authority of the throne of David. That will be the Millennial Kingdom.

The New Covenant does not eliminate the others, it amplifies and builds upon them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sdowney717

Newbie
Apr 20, 2013
8,712
2,021
✟102,588.00
Faith
Christian
Really? Then we might as all well quit all this Christian stuff.

Why do I say that? Well, there are at least 5 major covenants in the OT. All of them valid and still in effect.

1) Adamic Covenant
2) Noahic Covenant
3) Abrahamic Covenant
4) Mosaic or Sinai Covenant
5) Davidic Covenant

It can be argued to some degree that the 4th is conditional and therefore doesn't apply to Believers, but even that is debatable, unlike the others.

All of the rest of those covenants are unconditional. God made all of them only conditional on His word and promise, not on anything that can be broken by Man. Only the Mosaic Covenant was a dual conditional covenant, and Israel broke that one and it led to their punishment and dispersion from the land.

For instance, the Noahic Covenant. The Lord said that He would never again destroy the earth by a flood. Period. Has no conditions placed on it. Either the earth will never again be destroyed by a flood or the Lord is a liar. I'll let you decide that one.

Another, the Abrahamic Covenant. The sacrifice of the animals being split in half was a ancient ritual where both parties of the covenant would walk between the pieces and recite the words of the covenant. The symbolism is that if either party breaks the covenant, that they be dealt the same way as those animals. Abraham was put into a sleep and the Lord passed between the animals on His own. That made it conditional only upon the Lord's faithfulness to the covenant. Abraham, including all his descendants, couldn't abrogate the covenant if they wanted to. It was a land covenant that is still in effect and will be fully realized during the Millennial Kingdom.

To add a little humor to that... the West Bank will take on a whole new meaning in the Millennial Kingdom. As opposed to the West Bank of the Jordan River now, the new West Bank will be on the Euphrates River in Iraq. The United Nations will have no input in deciding that.

The Davidic Covenant, that a descendent of David would occupy the authority of the king over Israel and all the earth. If that is no longer in effect, then what are we wasting our time on here. Yeshua is never coming back to rule over this earth. Of course, that is silly. He indeed is coming back to do a hostile takeover of the earth and will rule from Jerusalem in the authority of the throne of David. That will be the Millennial Kingdom.

The New Covenant does not eliminate the others, it amplifies and builds upon them.
The New Covenant does not agree with you, not one bit it seems.

Hebrews 8
13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

And this was originally written in the Old Covenant!
God had already announced that a new covenant was coming back during the old covenant.
So yes, the old covenant has vanished away after the New Covenant is come.
Paul also makes mention that even during Moses Day, the old covenant was passing away.

2 Corinthians 3:12-14 New King James Version (NKJV)
12 Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech— 13 unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away.
 
Upvote 0

Copperhead

Newbie
Supporter
Feb 22, 2013
1,434
442
✟208,325.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Makes the first obsolete. Which first? In paul’s Day there was no “Old Testament”. That is the name man gave the collection of books generally referred to as the Tanakh when they put the Bible we have now together. To lump all the covenants as being made obsolete is poor arm chair theology.

Actually Hebrews is expounding on Jeremiah 31:31-32 which refers to the Mosaic/Sinai Covenant.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,327
14,493
Vancouver
Visit site
✟303,748.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Makes the first obsolete. Which first? In paul’s Day there was no “Old Testament”. That is the name man gave the collection of books generally referred to as the Tanakh when they put the Bible we have now together. To lump all the covenants as being made obsolete is lousy arm chair theology.

Actually Hebrews is expounding on Jeremiah 31:32
But there is an old and new covenant which is the same thing. Yet one is better.
 
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

sdowney717

Newbie
Apr 20, 2013
8,712
2,021
✟102,588.00
Faith
Christian
But there is an old and new covenant which is the same thing. Yet one is better.
God calls the first covenant an old one. Now we have a new one.
God says it has vanished. There is no longer an old covenant relationship between God and men.
And scripture talks about the first covenant being that old covenant of the law.
So I reject a multiplicity of covenants, to those who wrote down the scriptures there was the 'first covenant' and the second, new covenant, not 7 covenants.
If the 'first' covenant was number 6, or whatever number you want to assign it, why does scripture call it the first covenant.
I think we have an example of man's doctrines playing with the wording numbering a whole lot of different covenants. The apostles recognized the first covenant as the one of the Law of Moses.
But I have not thought too hard on what I view as meaningless numbering schemes.

Hebrews 8
13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

I have read some nonsense before about the old covenant with the Jews and God being refreshed during the millenium! , including temple worship, reestablishing of the levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices for sin offerings, which is totally unscriptural, actually of antichrist. The people who desire that will end up experiencing Satan seated in some earthly temple demanding he be worshipped as God, a false Christ.

And dont doubt that such craziness will not be rejected by them, God sends on them at that time a strong delusion to believe the LIE, because they refused to love the truth (Christ's new covenant in His blood) and be saved.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,327
14,493
Vancouver
Visit site
✟303,748.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
God calls the first covenant an old one. Now we have a new one.
God says it has vanished. There is no longer an old covenant relationship between God and men.
And scripture talks about the first covenant being that old covenant of the law.
So I reject a multiplicity of covenants, to those who wrote down the scriptures there was the 'first covenant' and the second, new covenant, not 7 covenants.
If the 'first' covenant was number 6, or whatever number you want to assign it, why does scripture call it the first covenant.
I think we have an example of man's doctrines playing with the wording numbering a whole lot of different covenants. The apostles recognized the first covenant as the one of the Law of Moses.
But I have not thought too hard on what I view as meaningless numbering schemes.

Hebrews 8
13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

I have read some nonsense before about the old covenant with the Jews and God being refreshed during the millenium! , including temple worship, reestablishing of the levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices for sin offerings, which is totally unscriptural, actually of antichrist. The people who desire that will end up experiencing Satan seated in some earthly temple demanding he be worshipped as God, a false Christ.

And dont doubt that such craziness will not be rejected by them, God sends on them at that time a strong delusion to believe the LIE, because they refused to love the truth (Christ's new covenant in His blood) and be saved.
I think it's safe to say that the new covenant is the last covenant, not thru various means and prophets but thru His Son.

When you look at the temple in Zechariah it's made of wood. Not overlaid with Gold which indicated God's covering so you could be right.
 
Upvote 0

Copperhead

Newbie
Supporter
Feb 22, 2013
1,434
442
✟208,325.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
But there is an old and new covenant which is the same thing. Yet one is better.

Yes, but it must be delineated which Covenant is the “old” one being referred to. It can’t be, for instance, the Davidic Covenant which is the one that promises the Messiah will one day rule over Israel and the earth.

The first Covenant is the Adamic Covenant. That one is not done away with either.
 
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,327
14,493
Vancouver
Visit site
✟303,748.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, but it must be delineated which Covenant is the “old” one being referred to. It can’t be, for instance, the Davidic Covenant which is the one that promises the Messiah will one day rule over Israel and the earth.

The first Covenant is the Adamic Covenant. That one is not done away with either.
Neither is the Noahic which holds promises too.
 
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