All Foods Clean?

[Ron Amnsn]

7 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

"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.” (Heb 8:13). 

My point is that a NEW Covenant allows for changes. 

Some English translations of this verse try to make the "first" already obsolete, but the Greek doesn't support that.  When this verse was written, the "first" had become old and was ready to pass away at the time in the future when God had already planned to do such things. It was not yet obsolete at the time Hebrews was written (a few decades after the veil of the Temple was torn).  The same author also says in Hebrews 1:11 that the foundations of the earth and the heavens have become old, using the same word as is the translators rendered as "obsolete" in this verse.  So it appears that the "first" is likely still as essential to us today as are the foundations of the earth and the heavens.  The author wrote this verse as if he expected the end of the world imminently, as did other NT authors.

We should also keep in mind that the new covenant has not been implemented fully until all the people know the Lord, as it says just before the verse you quoted (verse 11).

I agree that there may be some changes made to the covenant sometime in the future, after the conditions are fulfilled that Jesus specified in Matt 5:17-18. 

The only change that God has specified in the promise of the new (or renewed) covenant is that God will take responsibility for putting his laws (torah) in our minds and writing them on our hearts, a responsibility that was assigned to the people under the first covenant. (Deut. 6:5-10)

[Ron Amnsn]

On 7/10/2016 at 2:13 PM, LifeHiscost said:

There is a law known as the Law of Moses, given by God. This is the law (OT) that was done away with at the time of Jesus sacrifice. The Law of God is from eternity through eternity.

On 7/10/2016 at 2:19 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

Where do we find this Law of God of which you speak that was not part of God's Law of Moses?

3 hours ago, jackson said:

Two Laws ---Law of God (Ten Commandments) and the Law of Moses (Mosaic Law)

 

Jackson, you've made a good effort to try to differentiate between the "Ten Commandments" and the rest of the commandments of God found in the Law of Moses.

The term "Ten Commandments" is a mistranslation that misleads many people into thinking that the only "commandments" God has are the ones God spoke from Mt. Sinai.  It should be translated as "Ten Words" or "Ten Utterances".  Most of God's commandments are not in the Ten Words.  When Jesus was asked which was the greatest commandment, the two he chose were not in the Ten Words but in the rest of the Law of Moses. (Deut 6:4-5 and Lev 19:18)

My question was somewhat different than what you answered though.  The Ten Words that God spoke from Mt. Sinai are found within the Books of Moses and are written twice in the scroll of the Law of Moses that was placed beside the Ark of the Covenant (in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5).  In fact, if the Ten Words hadn't been recorded in the scroll of the Law of Moses, we would not know what they were because, although the tablets of stone are permanent, they aren't available to read. The only record we have of what God said from the mountain is what is contained in the Law of Moses.  The Jews of New Testament times (including the followers of Jesus who were all zealous for God's Law of Moses) did not separate the Ten Words from the rest of the Law.

The Ten Words are the Covenant document (sometimes referred to as the Testimony) preserved inside the "Ark of the Covenant".  The scroll containing God's Law of Moses records the Law that goes with that Covenant.  Notice that the Ark is not called the "Ark of the Law".

The Jews view the Ten Words as something like the table of contents to the Law of Moses.  For example,

• The Ten Words say, "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery," and the rest of Law of Moses tells us who YHWH is, how Israel got into slavery, how God brought Israel out of Egypt, and why it was significant enough to be recorded in the Words spoken by God from Mt. Sinai. 
• The Ten Words say, "I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments," and the rest of the Law of Moses tells us what "iniquity" is, and how to love God, and tells us what all of the commandments of God are. 
• The Ten Words say, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God," and the rest of the God's Law of Moses tells us how to distinguish between what is holy and what is common, how to do our work, how to rest, and how the seventh day became holy.
• The Ten Words say, "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you," and the rest of the Law of Moses teaches us what honor is, and how and why God gave Israel the land.

There isn't really any way to "keep" the Ten Words if you try to discard the Law of Moses that God gave Moses to give to the Israelites. What LifeHisCost called "The Law of God" is an integral part of God's Law of Moses.

The Bible doesn't designate any of the Law as "ceremonial", so you probably shouldn't either.

The word "carnal" is an interesting word.  For Catholics it carries with it a lot of non-Biblical baggage related to tradition. In Hebrews 7:16 the Greek word is not "carnal" of course, it's just a word to designate the physical lineage that made the descendants of Aaron priests by law.

[JoeMo]

12 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Some English translations of this verse try to make the "first" already obsolete, but the Greek doesn't support that....

The term "Ten Commandments" is a mistranslation that misleads many people into thinking that the only "commandments" God has are the ones God spoke from Mt. Sinai.  It should be translated as "Ten Words" or "Ten Utterances".  Most of God's commandments are not in the Ten Words.

I don't think believers should have to be linguistic experts to rightly understand the Good News.

 

Rachel says that Ezekiel could be symbolic rather than literal.  I submit that it could also be literal rather than symbolic.  The precision with which Ezekiel describes and measures the temple implies to me it is a literal description.  Sometimes scripture becomes much clearer to me if I read it literally rather than trying to spiritualize everything.  In the end, it doesn't much matter whether we're vegans or omnivores in the Kingdom, as long as we're in the Kingdom.  Who knows?  Steak and sushi might grow on trees!

 

[CoAspen]

Quote

Who knows?  Steak and sushi might grow on trees!

[Ron Amnsn]

17 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I don't think believers should have to be linguistic experts to rightly understand the Good News.

I agree with you. The original readers would have easily understood what was written, and may have known the author personally. If they knew the author was faithfully upholding all of God's Word, they wouldn't even entertain the thought that he might have meant that some of God's commandments were disposable.

The problem we have is that we are living after the apostasy (falling away or rebellion) that Paul foretold in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 that he said was already at work in his time (v. 7).  "Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first," and "For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work."  The primary characteristic of that apostasy is lawlessness, which literally means "living without law".  That lawlessness is the same characteristic that Jesus identified in the Sermon on the Mount in those who would say at his return, "Didn't we do[great things in your name?" but will be sent away.

Do you think the Bible translators were all somehow immune to the deception of lawlessness?  The translators certainly weren't living according to the Law of Moses as the authors of the Bible were (with the exception of Nebuchadnezzar who wrote Daniel chapter 4).  Because the translators themselves were not living according to God's Law, they would tend to translate the Bible in a way that would excuse their own degree of lawlessness.  In cases where a NT passage could be translated in a way that would either uphold the Law or set aside the Law, they have usually chosen to render the passage as if it were setting aside the Law.

We wouldn't be deceived by what the translators have done if we had been taught to test our interpretations of Scripture to ensure that our interpretations agree with all of God's Word that was revealed prior to the author we are interpreting, as was done originally as step by step through history as each new teaching came on the scene, and was tested then accepted or rejected by whether it agreed with previously existing Scripture.

[CoAspen]

Quote

We wouldn't be deceived by what the translators have done if we had been taught to test our interpretations of Scripture to ensure that our interpretations agree with all of God's Word that was revealed prior to the author we are interpreting, as was done originally as step by step through history as each new teaching came on the scene, and was tested then accepted or rejected by whether it agreed with previously existing Scripture.

Where do I find room for growth in understanding based on the above? Where is the cut off line for  'existing scripture'? What author or authors are are you referring too.

 

[Ron Amnsn]

4 hours ago, CoAspen said:

Where do I find room for growth in understanding based on the above? Where is the cut off line for  'existing scripture'? What author or authors are are you referring too.

Whose "growth in understanding" are you concerned about?  I think God understood the end from way back at the beginning, so he knew what he would teach each step of the way.  I don't think any part of the plan of salvation or any of the history of Israel caught God by surprise.  God could work with a consistent plan every step of the way creating lessons and laws that would be of lasting value.  If a student starts studying Biology in Kindergarten, he can keep growing in understanding all through school and university and beyond, and can add in other studies like psychology and animal behavior without having any of the later lessons contradict the earlier textbooks, especially if God is the one who wrote all the lessons and textbooks.

The author I refer to is the one who wrote the passage in the Bible that you are interpreting.

I think throughout history the cut off point for previously existing Scripture was probably fairly obvious-- you couldn't test a person's teachings by Scripture that wasn't available yet. There may have been instances where what God had previously revealed hadn't been written down yet, but could still be used for testing.  An example of that might be the oral stories and eyewitness accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus which Paul's peers could have used to see if Paul was teaching the same as Jesus taught, even if those stories hadn't been published yet.

For example, if you were interpreting a passage in Colossians 2 today, Paul would be the author.  The previously existing Scriptures would be the Old Testament and the gospel accounts.

[CoAspen]

Who wrote the Bible, one author? No, many authors from different perspective, such as M, M, L, and J. We learn something different from each one. We have 'growth in understanding' by continuing to learn.  The authors of the Bible were no more perfect that the translators. Is the suggestion that the original authors were not biased by culture and life experience? It can easily be pointed out the changes of understanding and 'laws' from Genesis through Revelation. In fact we know that Jesus teachings were different from that of the OT, he got in a lot of trouble with religious leaders of His day. There much misunderstanding of prior prophets in His day which He corrected. So to compare what He taught with what the 'torah' of that time taught was different. Growth in understanding is required. 

[8thdaypriest]

On 7/14/2016 at 6:34 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

So if your husband died and was resurrected within three days, you'd consider yourself widowed and free to marry another man?

NKJ  Romans 7:1 "Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another-- to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God."

The One who died and rose again WAS another, in the eyes of the Law. 

The Torah forbade a man to remarry a woman he had divorced.  The LORD could not renew His marriage covenant with Israel, because He had given her a bill of divorcement.  But if He DIED that would hit the reset button, in the eyes of the Law.  Then He COULD marry Israel. 

 

[8thdaypriest]

On 7/14/2016 at 8:03 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

Some English translations of this verse try to make the "first" already obsolete, but the Greek doesn't support that.  When this verse was written, the "first" had become old and was ready to pass away at the time in the future when God had already planned to do such things. It was not yet obsolete at the time Hebrews was written (a few decades after the veil of the Temple was torn).  The same author also says in Hebrews 1:11 that the foundations of the earth and the heavens have become old, using the same word as is the translators rendered as "obsolete" in this verse.  So it appears that the "first" is likely still as essential to us today as are the foundations of the earth and the heavens.  The author wrote this verse as if he expected the end of the world imminently, as did other NT authors.

We should also keep in mind that the new covenant has not been implemented fully until all the people know the Lord, as it says just before the verse you quoted (verse 11).

I agree that there may be some changes made to the covenant sometime in the future, after the conditions are fulfilled that Jesus specified in Matt 5:17-18. 

The only change that God has specified in the promise of the new (or renewed) covenant is that God will take responsibility for putting his laws (torah) in our minds and writing them on our hearts, a responsibility that was assigned to the people under the first covenant. (Deut. 6:5-10)

I agree that the New (marriage) Covenant has not yet been consummated.  Now - we are betrothed. 

2 Corinthians 11:2 "For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

NKJ  Ezekiel 36:24 "For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

As you know - betrothal was legally binding.  Betrothal WAS the marriage covenant.  It only remained for the marriage covenant to be consummated.  Adultery during the period of betrothal was the same as adultery after the marriage was consummated. 

Because we are betrothed, we ARE under a NEW COVENANT.

[debbym]

34 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I agree that the New (marriage) Covenant has not yet been consummated.  Now - we are betrothed. 

2 Corinthians 11:2 "For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

NKJ  Ezekiel 36:24 "For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

As you know - betrothal was legally binding.  Betrothal WAS the marriage covenant.  It only remained for the marriage covenant to be consummated.  Adultery during the period of betrothal was the same as adultery after the marriage was consummated. 

Because we are betrothed, we ARE under a NEW COVENANT.

we are only joined to Christ if there has been a death to the old man.  The new covenant is being joined in a new relationship.  If the old man is still the ruling relationship in your life you are committing adultery to attempt to be joined to Christ without the death of the old man.  So Israel was called an adulterous nation when they still worshipped the old gods while saying they wanted all the blessings of serving the living God.

[Ron Amnsn]

10 hours ago, CoAspen said:

Who wrote the Bible, one author? No, many authors from different perspective, such as M, M, L, and J. We learn something different from each one. We have 'growth in understanding' by continuing to learn.  The authors of the Bible were no more perfect that the translators. Is the suggestion that the original authors were not biased by culture and life experience? It can easily be pointed out the changes of understanding and 'laws' from Genesis through Revelation. In fact we know that Jesus teachings were different from that of the OT, he got in a lot of trouble with religious leaders of His day. There much misunderstanding of prior prophets in His day which He corrected. So to compare what He taught with what the 'torah' of that time taught was different. Growth in understanding is required. 

The serpent wanted Eve to "grow in understanding".  So not all "growth in understanding" is good, nor is it being faithful to God. Throughout history God hasn't necessarily needed people of "great understanding" -- what God seems to want was people who would faithfully follow God's instructions that had been given.  That's what Eve didn't do.  She didn't test the new teaching of the serpent using God's previously given revelation and then stick with God's actual instructions.  That is the very first lesson in the Bible after the creation story.  I believe it's there for a reason.

A person who follows the Law of Moses is just as able to continue to learn and gain understanding as one who sets aside God's law.  Jesus himself lived according to the Law of Moses.  It was the pre-incarnate Jesus (or the Father with whom Jesus is in perfect unity) who gave the Law of Moses, so I think he understood the full intent and purpose of the Law.  It was while Jesus was living according to God's Law of Moses that Jesus said, "Follow me," and "I am the way, the truth, and the life."

I am sure that the original Bible authors were biased by culture and life experience.  That's a good thing when your culture has God's Law as the foundation and your life experience is one of obedience to God's instructions.  Yes, there was some misunderstanding.  Because the apostle Paul was raised with the man-made Jewish traditions overlaid on top of God's Law of Moses and hadn't tested each of those traditions by Scripture, Paul originally persecuted the followers of Jesus, who were all "zealous for the Law" (Acts 21:20) as a result of being filled with the Holy Spirit (see Ezekiel 11:19-20 and Ezekiel 36:26-27) and were following the example of Jesus.

God intentionally chose for Jesus to be born into a clan that was faithfully following the Law of Moses so that Jesus would grow up with the biases that come from that culture and that life experience of obedience.  The parents of John the Immerser, who were close relatives of Mary the mother of Jesus are described in the New Testament like this -- "They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord."

The trouble Jesus had with the religious leader of his day was not because they were following the Law of Moses while Jesus was wanting to set aside the Law of Moses to institute something new.  It was because the religious leaders were following political ambitions and man-made traditions that contradicted what God had said the Old Testament.

I think the "much misunderstanding of prior prophets in His day" was mostly that they didn't yet understand that Messiah would come twice, once as a sacrifice and once as King. As time goes on and we grow in the right kind of understanding, we will be able to confirm that God's Old Testament revelation and instructions were correct, rather than thinking that it need was defective and needs to be set aside.

[8thdaypriest]

On 7/15/2016 at 8:55 AM, JoeMo said:

Rachel says that Ezekiel could be symbolic rather than literal.  I submit that it could also be literal rather than symbolic.  The precision with which Ezekiel describes and measures the temple implies to me it is a literal description.  Sometimes scripture becomes much clearer to me if I read it literally rather than trying to spiritualize everything.  In the end, it doesn't much matter whether we're vegans or omnivores in the Kingdom, as long as we're in the Kingdom.  Who knows?  Steak and sushi might grow on trees!

The vision and prophecy given to Ezekiel was written down long before Jesus died.  It was written down before the Jews were allowed to return to "the land".  If Ezekiel had been shown the Temple of Yahweh with no animal sacrifices, the returning Jews might have abandoned the sacrificial system, or changed it, when they returned to "the land".  But it was NOT YET TIME.  The perfect (once for all) Sacrifice had not yet been presented. 

The wilderness Tabernacle was a REAL tent.  The Ark was a REAL box overlaid with gold.  It was also SYMBOLIC.  Every animal sacrificed SYMBOLIZED Jesus.  The high priest symbolized Christ.   The Tent - symbolized "Heaven itself". 

Will a LITERAL Temple be erected on the earth AFTER the second coming?  I believe so. The "nations" raised as "the rest of the dead" will need a place to interface with God, and to "learn His ways", just as the people did during the OT.  They will not be ready to stand in His glorious presence.  (Yes - I believe this Temple will be erected for the 8th millennium, not the 7th.) 

Just how much of what Ezekiel "saw" and "heard" will LITERALLY be experienced by worshipers at that Temple - we just don't know. 

Speaking of the priests who minister at this Temple, the LORD said, "They shall not take as wife a widow or a divorced woman, but take virgins of the descendants of the house of Israel, or widows of priests" (Ezekiel 44:22).  Yet Jesus said that "in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage" (Lk 20:35). 

43:19, and 44:15-16, say that ONLY the Sons of Zadok will be priests of this Temple.  There is no mention of a High Priest.

In this Temple "the Prince" acts as a priest.  45:17 “He”(the prince) “shall prepare the burnt offerings, and peace offerings,
        “to make atonement” . .  “for the house of Israel”.     If Christ CANNOT BE a priest on the earth, then who is this "prince" who is acting as a priest?

Eze. 44:31 The priests who minister at this Temple are not to eat anything "torn by WILD animals".  What WILD animals?  The carnivores are all vegetarian in Messiah's kingdom.

There is NOTHING IN THIS TEMPLE but an "alter" made of wood.  The cross???

There is much, much more I could say, but I think you get my drift. 

 

[8thdaypriest]

25 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

I think the "much misunderstanding of prior prophets in His day" was mostly that they didn't yet understand that Messiah would come twice, once as a sacrifice and once as King. As time goes on and we grow in the right kind of understanding, we will be able to confirm that God's Old Testament revelation and instructions were correct, rather than thinking that it need was defective and needs to be set aside.

The ONLY thing that has been "changed" is the priesthood - from Levitical to Melchizedek.  But with that "change" - there no longer remain priests to receive or offer the animal sacrifices. 

[Tom Wetmore]

This topic has gotten way off track....

 

Let's get...

[Ron Amnsn]

1 hour ago, Tom Wetmore said:

This topic has gotten way off track....

Let's get...

Whether or not God's Law of Moses can be rightfully set aside is the root issue to the question of whether Jesus set aside the part of the law regarding unclean meat in Mark 7:19.

Under the influence of the apostasy through the centuries since the New Testament was written, and with the help of translators who were biased towards setting aside the Law of God, people have come up with many clever and innovative ways to interpret the New Testament to make it look like setting aside God's Law of Moses is the right thing to do.  So the discussion does tend to swing broadly as people bring up all the various evidence that they think justifies setting aside the parts of God's Law of Moses that they have deemed onerous.

[Ron Amnsn]

4 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The One who died and rose again WAS another, in the eyes of the Law. 

I think you are making that up. Do you have any evidence other than Romans 7:1-4.

Romans 7 goes with Romans 6.  The chapter break that some man inserted in the middle of Paul's discourse gets people mixed up about what Paul was saying.  Paul is telling individuals who had been bound to sin that when they "die" with Christ they are free from the natural law that binds them to sin, so they can be joined to Christ and live in righteousness.  The discourse is not about Israel's covenant as a nation with God.

4 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The Torah forbade a man to remarry a woman he had divorced.  The LORD could not renew His marriage covenant with Israel, because He had given her a bill of divorcement.

Maybe you could provide references when you talk about specific provisions of Torah, so people could more easily test your teachings. 

According to Deut. 24:1-4 it was forbidden for a divorced woman to re-marry her husband if she had married another man after being divorced.  I haven't found a prohibition against the first husband remarrying his divorced wife if she hadn't been married to another man in between.

[Ron Amnsn]

6 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

In this Temple "the Prince" acts as a priest.  45:17 “He”(the prince) “shall prepare the burnt offerings, and peace offerings,
        “to make atonement” . .  “for the house of Israel”.     If Christ CANNOT BE a priest on the earth, then who is this "prince" who is acting as a priest?

I guess it depends on which translation you rely on.  In the ESV (and a few other versions) it says the prince provides the offerings rather than prepares them.  It was normal for rulers like Solomon to provide the animals that would be sacrificed.  That didn't make Solomon a priest.

At this point I think the identity of "the prince" is still just speculation.

[Ron Amnsn]

6 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The ONLY thing that has been "changed" is the priesthood - from Levitical to Melchizedek.  But with that "change" - there no longer remain priests to receive or offer the animal sacrifices. 

You seem to disagree with the book of Hebrews.  A few decades after Jesus ascended to do the work of High Priest in the heavenly Sanctuary, the author of Hebrews said in the present tense, "Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law." (Heb. 8:4)  Apparently the two orders of priesthood were operating concurrently at that time.  Obviously, the law that specified that Jesus couldn't be a priest if he were on earth was still valid when this verse was written, and there were still priests offering gifts on earth according to that still-valid law, while at the same time Jesus was serving as high priest of the heavenly Sanctuary.

At what point in time did Jesus first become "a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek”? (Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 7:17, 12):  Was it before the Psalmist first wrote Psalm 110?  Or was it "forever" going back in time before the world had any time?  If so, then the Melkizedekian priesthood had functioned concurrently with the Levitical priesthood for a long, long time. 

Nevertheless, if there were any priestly duties associated with preparing himself for sacrifice through the incarnation and life on earth, then the two priesthoods would have been operating concurrently before the veil of the Temple was torn, as Jesus prepared the ultimate sacrifice as a Melchizedekian priest and the Levitical priests continued serving at the Jerusalem temple.

Perhaps you are thinking that the Levitical priesthood has to disappear when the Melchizedekian priesthood starts because "anti-types" supposedly do away with "types".  Where does the Scriptures specify that the "types" always become invalid when the "anti-type" appears?  I think that part of the theory is just man-made speculation.  Certainly lambs still exist even after Jesus became the "Lamb of God".  And marriages still exist even after God became betrothed to Israel.  So the Levitical priesthood probably still exists and can function legitimately if/when the Temple were to be restored in Jerusalem.

God made a covenant with the descendants of Aaron to serve as Levitical priests.  In Jeremiah 33:19-22 God re-confirms that covenant and declares that it cannot be broken while day and night continue.  (This was after God already knew how unfaithful the Israelites were.)  Since Jesus said "the Scriptures cannot be broken" (John 10:35), I'm confident that the Levitical priesthood still exists, just as the throne of David still exists and will be given to Jesus. (Luke 1:32)

[Tom Wetmore]

6 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Whether or not God's Law of Moses can be rightfully set aside is the root issue to the question of whether Jesus set aside the part of the law regarding unclean meat in Mark 7:19.

Under the influence of the apostasy through the centuries since the New Testament was written, and with the help of translators who were biased towards setting aside the Law of God, people have come up with many clever and innovative ways to interpret the New Testament to make it look like setting aside God's Law of Moses is the right thing to do.  So the discussion does tend to swing broadly as people bring up all the various evidence that they think justifies setting aside the parts of God's Law of Moses that they have deemed onerous.

But you are just getting so bogged down and so far off track that there is little hope of getting back on track.  You are losing everyone else in this esoteric debate.  Bring this back around real soon to the topic...

[whbae]

You should read the Mark chapter from the verse first to understand what Christ was saying.  He was rebuking the Pharisees ceremonial attitude. Thus, Jesus did not have to classify what kind of food he was talking about. Every one understood that Jesus was talking about qualified edible food according the Mosaic law.

[Ron Amnsn]

Another bit of evidence that Jesus did not declare "all foods clean":

In 1 Peter 1:15-16 it says, "but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, 'You shall be holy, for I am holy.' "

Do you know where this is written in Scripture? 

It appears twice in the summary of Leviticus 11, a chapter that defines which animals are clean for food and which animals are not.
"Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground. For I am the LORD who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.” (Leviticus 11:44-45)

The other place it appears is Leviticus 19:1-3
"And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 'Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them, You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy. Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father, and you shall keep my Sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.' "

It is clear that the author of 1 Peter believes Leviticus still contains authoritative guidelines for New Testament believers to "be holy in all your conduct".

[8thdaypriest]

18 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

I guess it depends on which translation you rely on.  In the ESV (and a few other versions) it says the prince provides the offerings rather than prepares them.  It was normal for rulers like Solomon to provide the animals that would be sacrificed.  That didn't make Solomon a priest.

At this point I think the identity of "the prince" is still just speculation.

Ezekiel was "shown" a resurrection.  Some say that resurrection will be literal, and some say it is symbolic.  Some say the current nation of Israel IS the fulfillment of that prophecy. (I disagree.)

I believe the resurrection of redeemed Israel will be literal.  It will take place at the Second Coming.  This being the case - WHO would then be "Prince" ruling over Israel returned to the land? 

Jesus!!

[8thdaypriest]

17 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

You seem to disagree with the book of Hebrews.  A few decades after Jesus ascended to do the work of High Priest in the heavenly Sanctuary, the author of Hebrews said in the present tense, "Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law." (Heb. 8:4)  Apparently the two orders of priesthood were operating concurrently at that time.  Obviously, the law that specified that Jesus couldn't be a priest if he were on earth was still valid when this verse was written, and there were still priests offering gifts on earth according to that still-valid law, while at the same time Jesus was serving as high priest of the heavenly Sanctuary.

At what point in time did Jesus first become "a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek”? (Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 7:17, 12):  Was it before the Psalmist first wrote Psalm 110?  Or was it "forever" going back in time before the world had any time?  If so, then the Melkizedekian priesthood had functioned concurrently with the Levitical priesthood for a long, long time. 

Nevertheless, if there were any priestly duties associated with preparing himself for sacrifice through the incarnation and life on earth, then the two priesthoods would have been operating concurrently before the veil of the Temple was torn, as Jesus prepared the ultimate sacrifice as a Melchizedekian priest and the Levitical priests continued serving at the Jerusalem temple.

Perhaps you are thinking that the Levitical priesthood has to disappear when the Melchizedekian priesthood starts because "anti-types" supposedly do away with "types".  Where does the Scriptures specify that the "types" always become invalid when the "anti-type" appears?  I think that part of the theory is just man-made speculation.  Certainly lambs still exist even after Jesus became the "Lamb of God".  And marriages still exist even after God became betrothed to Israel.  So the Levitical priesthood probably still exists and can function legitimately if/when the Temple were to be restored in Jerusalem.

God made a covenant with the descendants of Aaron to serve as Levitical priests.  In Jeremiah 33:19-22 God re-confirms that covenant and declares that it cannot be broken while day and night continue.  (This was after God already knew how unfaithful the Israelites were.)  Since Jesus said "the Scriptures cannot be broken" (John 10:35), I'm confident that the Levitical priesthood still exists, just as the throne of David still exists and will be given to Jesus. (Luke 1:32)

I copied this post over into a new thread, so we won't continue to clutter this thread about "Foods". 

[Raphael]

Ya an FB pal posted how strikingly similar cockroaches and shrimps are.. Hehe..