Under Law

[Gustave]

54 minutes ago, BlessedMan said:

Are you sure that its a good idea, exegetically, to leave out the other parts of this text and to make it out as only a part of the original? Also wondering how that text can be thought of as only talking about food? I think the context is MUCH different than this.

Pertaining to what one eats. 

Leviticus 11,7 asserts God said swine was unclean unto [who]?

Romans 14 is explicit that Christians can eat ANYTHING and that Christians with weak faith are also at liberty to not eat certain things. Paul says that he "KNOWS" and was fully persuaded by Christ Himself there was nothing unclean of itself. If a person of weak faith wants to be superstitious about God not wanting him to eat a hotdog or BLT Scripture is pretty clear that a person can be superstitious about that - they are within the Liberty of Christ to look at it this way. This is absolutely speaking of foods. 

This is a radical change of The Law (1st 5 Books of the Bible).

 

[BlessedMan]

14 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Pertaining to what one eats. 

Leviticus 11,7 asserts God said swine was unclean unto [who]?

Romans 14 is explicit that Christians can eat ANYTHING and that Christians with weak faith are also at liberty to not eat certain things. Paul says that he "KNOWS" and was fully persuaded by Christ Himself there was nothing unclean of itself. If a person of weak faith wants to be superstitious about God not wanting him to eat a hotdog or BLT Scripture is pretty clear that a person can be superstitious about that - they are within the Liberty of Christ to look at it this way. This is absolutely speaking of foods. 

This is a radical change of The Law (1st 5 Books of the Bible).

 

LOL, well, Im very confident I could name some things you wouldnt want to eat, nor should eat. You see, the one thing that sort of foils your idea here is that not everything we are "allowed" to eat is "food."  Something to seriously think about, regarding this idea of being "allowed" to eat anything. There are MANY prerequisites for this text in Rom 14 my friend. Some people, I know, also try to use Acts 10 to say the same thing.

[Gustave]

9 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

LOL, well, Im very confident I could name some things you wouldnt want to eat, nor should eat. You see, the one thing that sort of foils your idea here is that not everything we are "allowed" to eat is "food."  Something to seriously think about, regarding this idea of being "allowed" to eat anything. There are MANY prerequisites for this text in Rom 14 my friend. Some people, I know, also try to use Acts 10 to say the same thing.

That's akin to saying that IF the Old Testament Law is gone we are at liberty to kill, murder, steal, etc. This is a common Adventist argument easily answered by pointing to scores of ancient cultures who had laws against murder, stealing, etc. IF those ancient cultures could abide by the laws the majority of Christians call Moral or Natural "without the 10 Commandments" (which is just another name for "The Law Of Moses") -  I can assure you that there existed food considered "Levitically  unclean" in the meat market spoken of by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10,25.

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscious..... IF one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you...….."

 There are many things sold in a meat market that are unclean according to the Law of Moses and the whole idea of owning a butcher shop is to showcase products customers generally want AND BUY. It's a safe bet to assume that the meat market Paul was speaking of didn't have anything in it that a retired Roman Military Officer or a wealthy Greek "wouldn't want to eat" - it's obvious however that this particular  meat market contained products for sale that an observant Jew wouldn't touch. 

Do you really believe that Jewish converts to Christianity understood the end of the Levitical dietary laws to mean that now they could get that bowl of earthworms, maggots & camel droppings? LOL! 

[Gustave]

11 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

Are you sure that its a good idea, exegetically, to leave out the other parts of this text and to make it out as only a part of the original? Also wondering how that text can be thought of as only talking about food? I think the context is MUCH different than this.

This is a generality within the context of a religious sense - NOT a moral sense. Check Strong's. 

[BlessedMan]

21 minutes ago, Gustave said:

This is a common Adventist argument easily answered by pointing to scores of ancient cultures who had laws against murder, stealing, etc. IF those ancient cultures could abide by the laws the majority of Christians call Moral or Natural "without the 10 Commandments" (which is just another name for "The Law Of Moses") -

I can assure you I am not discussing from "an Adventist position," whatever that is here. All I said so far is that not everything we are "allowed" to eat is "food," regardless of who puts it on the table before us.

[8thdaypriest]

NIV  Genesis 7:2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,

I always thought the LORD told Noah to take 7 pairs of each type "clean" animal, and only 2 pairs of each type "unclean" animal, because Noah and family would not be eating the "unclean" ones. 

If Noah understood what was "clean" for "food", the commands to Israel were just a refresher.   So meats were Noahic "clean" not just Levirate "clean".

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/12/2019 at 2:51 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

In 1Corinthians 8, the whole subject is "things offered to idols" . 

v.4  "Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one." 

Some of the believers would not eat anything first offered to an idol "their conscience, being weak, is defiled".  Others who understood that an idol was "nothing in the world", would eat the foods.  Paul was warning them to be careful of their "weaker" brothers who might not understand their actions, who might assume it was fine to worship other gods or take part in pagan festivals.   

Romans 14:1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him.

In the Roman world, all the produce sold in the market - except vegetables - was first "offered" to the gods for their blessing, before being sold.  One "weak in faith" (without Paul's understanding that idols cannot change the food) would avoid eating anything that might have been offered to an idol - as per James.

Then there is Jesus own statement. 

Mark 7:16  17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) 20 He went on: "What comes out of a person is what defiles them. (NIV)

The key word here is "foods".  (What the Jews regarded as "food" is NOT what the Gentiles regarded as "food".) 

All foods are clean whether or not one ceremonially washes his hands before a meal. 

Mark 7:3-5  "For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches. 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?" (NKJ)

In context Jesus, is criticizing the "traditions" of the Pharisees.  He is not nullifying His own own separation of clean from unclean when it comes to animals designated for consumption by humans.  That designation was evident at the flood of Noah.  He called them "clean" and "unclean" long before His incarnation. 

I copied my post from August 12 here, because you were discussing "foods".

The very first "necessary thing" in the list from the Jerusalem Council was to "abstain from things offered to idols".   Paul is reassuring folks that the idols can't literally change the "food".   That's it.   The definition of "food" has not changed, for Paul.  Paul was not redefining "food" to mean "anything which is eaten - by anyone - ever". 

[Gustave]

41 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

NIV  Genesis 7:2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,

I always thought the LORD told Noah to take 7 pairs of each type "clean" animal, and only 2 pairs of each type "unclean" animal, because Noah and family would not be eating the "unclean" ones. 

If Noah understood what was "clean" for "food", the commands to Israel were just a refresher.   So meats were Noahic "clean" not just Levirate "clean".

Who wrote the Book of Genesis in your view? Do you believe the Book of Genesis (as a written work) predated the Exodus and the giving of the law on the Mountain?

[8thdaypriest]

I believe that Moses wrote down everything (history and law) up until his death.  For the creation accounts and the Flood account, Moses would have needed the LORD's help.  I don't know if written language was in existence (in the Ancient Middle East) prior to the time of Joseph.  I believe the LORD gave that gift to Joseph.  It originated with Joseph, and spread out from him.

No.  I don't believe the P document hypothesis, that later priests (and others) wrote the Five Books we know as The Torah. 

[Gustave]

14 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I believe that Moses wrote down everything (history and law) up until his death.  For the creation accounts and the Flood account, Moses would have needed the LORD's help.  I don't know if written language was in existence (in the Ancient Middle East) prior to the time of Joseph.  I believe the LORD gave that gift to Joseph.  It originated with Joseph, and spread out from him.

No.  I don't believe the P document hypothesis, that later priests (and others) wrote the Five Books we know as The Torah. 

Abraham wasn't Kosher and the angels who visited his table evidently weren't either. 

[JoeMo]

15 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I don't know if written language was in existence (in the Ancient Middle East)

According to the British Museum, "The earliest writing we know of dates back to around 3,000 BC and was probably invented by the Sumerians, living in major cities with centralised economies in what is now southern Iraq." This is definitely in the Middle East.  It was likely cuneiform.

 

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

Abraham wasn't Kosher and the angels who visited his table evidently weren't either. 

'Then he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf and gave it to a servant, who hurried to prepare it. 8 He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree." (Gen. 18:7-8)

Sounds pretty kosher to me(except arguably for maybe mixing the meat with its mother's milk).

[Gustave]

17 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

According to the British Museum, "The earliest writing we know of dates back to around 3,000 BC and was probably invented by the Sumerians, living in major cities with centralised economies in what is now southern Iraq." This is definitely in the Middle East.  It was likely cuneiform.

 

'Then he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf and gave it to a servant, who hurried to prepare it. 8 He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree." (Gen. 18:7-8)

Sounds pretty kosher to me(except arguably for maybe mixing the meat with its mother's milk).

No such thing as sort of or pretty Kosher - its either Levitically compliant or it's not. In this case it was definitely NOT. 

[Ron Amnsn]

Which verse

16 minutes ago, Gustave said:

No such thing as sort of or pretty Kosher - its either Levitically compliant or it's not. In this case it was definitely NOT. 

Which passage in God's Law of Moses supports your assertion that the meal Abraham served was not compliant?

[Gustave]

14 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Which verse

Which passage in God's Law of Moses supports your assertion that the meal Abraham served was not compliant?

You know which two texts this is based off of & prior to saying that it doesn't apply or that the Jews got it wrong I'll remind you it was Christ who said that the Scribes and Pharisees interpretation of the Law was valid up until the point all power was transferred to the Church. 

[Ron Amnsn]

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

You know which two texts this is based off

I'm not aware of any text in the Bible that prohibits the foods that Abraham served.  Which passages are you referring to?  Let's take a look at them.

[8thdaypriest]

LXA  Genesis 18:8 And he took butter and milk, and the calf which he had dressed; and he set them before them, and they did eat, and he stood by them under the tree. (Gen 18:8 LXA)

Abraham did not boil a "kid" in its mother's milk.   He only served both meat and milk product at the same meal. 

The Talmud (Oral Torah) expanded the prohibition to include mixing any kosher meat with any kosher milk product, in cooking and also for consuming at the same meal, but these commands are not in the written Torah. 

This is from www.jccmb.com, the Jewish Community Center

One of the important aspects of observing kosher is keeping milk and meat properly separated. This prohibition is derived from the verse, "Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk." This verse appears in the Torah three times, twice in Exodus (23:19 and 34:26) and once in Deuteronomy (14:21). According to Jewish tradition,

According to Jewish tradition (Talmud Chullin 113b), the Hebrew word g'di (kid goat) is understood to mean any young domestic animal—not only a kid goat. The repetition of the verse teaches us that it is not only forbidden to cook meat and milk together, but it's also forbidden to then eat or derive benefit from the mixture. In fact, the [Oral] Torah forbids the cooking, eating and benefit of the meat of any kosher domesticated animal, in any kosher milk. The  [Oral] Torah simply gives an example of a "kid in its mother's milk" because that was common practice in ancient times.

Rachel added [Oral] for emphasis.

 

[8thdaypriest]

8 hours ago, Gustave said:

You know which two texts this is based off of & prior to saying that it doesn't apply or that the Jews got it wrong I'll remind you it was Christ who said that the Scribes and Pharisees interpretation of the Law was valid up until the point all power was transferred to the Church. 

Christ told the Scribes and Pharisees

Matthew 15:3 He answered them, "And why do you disobey the commandment of God because of your tradition?"

Matthew 15:6  "Thus by your tradition you make null and void the word of God!"

 Mark 7:9 He was also saying to them, "You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition."

Mark 7:13 "Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like this."

Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of the Scribes and Pharisees interpretation of the Law.  To me. 

[8thdaypriest]

Matthew 23:2 saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;"

They might have been sitting in positions of authority over the people.  Didn't make them righteous, or good teachers of the Law - or even accurate teachers of the Law. 

Many descendants of King David ruled over Israel.  A few were righteous and ruled wisely.  Most were not, and did not.  Jesus did not teach people to rebel against the ruling authorities (whether Babylonian, Roman, or Jewish), except where those authorities compelled them to violate God's Law, or to renounce Christ as LORD.   

[Ron Amnsn]

On 10/1/2019 at 8:49 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

I understand that accepted Pharisaic circumcision, involved more than the simple circumcision that Abraham experienced. 

But the Gentile converts probably would not have understood that.  How would Gentile converts have understood Paul's warning.  Wasn't Paul warning them not to become involved with such as "those of the circumcision" - even though those men were "Pharisees who believed" in Jesus as Messiah. 

Paul was writing to Gentile converts at Galatia who were associating with Jews.  They were definitely not ignorant of Jewish customs.  If we interpret the epistle to the Galatians within a context consistent with history and the rest of the Bible it becomes evident that it was the oral traditions of the Jews that the Gentile believers in Galatia were being pressured to adopt.  

[BlessedMan]

58 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Jesus did not teach people to rebel against the ruling authorities (whether Babylonian, Roman, or Jewish), except where those authorities compelled them to violate God's Law, or to renounce Christ as LORD.  

excellent point

[Ron Amnsn]

On 10/1/2019 at 8:49 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

To offer a sacrifice and expect an Aaronic priest to "make atonement for you", is the same as saying "I need this because I have not yet received it."  That's the same as saying "I did not receive this through Christ".  Such is to deny Christ. 

This is a very popular teaching, but it is not a teaching that is found in the Bible.  It is quite contrary to what the Bible teaches.

The followers of Jesus continued to go to the Temple in Jerusalem to worship until just before it was destroyed.  The temple was the only place on earth where the animal sacrifices were being done.  Every morning and evening a lamb was offered there.  If that sacrifice actually represented what you have asserted, the followers of Jesus would have avoided worshiping there.  The fact that the followers of Jesus were still offering sacrifices in obedience to God's Old Testament instructions at least until Acts 21.  The unfulfilled prophecy that Jesus quoted from Isaiah 56 when he drove the merchants from the Temple includes a time Gentiles will bring burnt offerings that will be accepted on the altar.  The unfulfilled prophecy of the Temple in the final chapters in Ezekiel also includes animal sacrifices that are acceptable to God, and which do not contain even a hint of a denial of Messiah.

[JoeMo]

I kinda think that - no matter which Law one is referring to - once we have been justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ,  we are convicted on breaking the law; but not condemned - especially if we confess our transgression. Living in the Spirit rather than under the Law means following where the Spirit leads us in our path to being an imager of Christ.  We will all mess up along the way; but if we keep our eyes on Christ and follow the Spirit's lead on the path to sanctification (trust and obedience), eternal life (free gift) will come with rewards for a job well done as well.

[BlessedMan]

4 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

This is a very popular teaching, but it is not a teaching that is found in the Bible.  It is quite contrary to what the Bible teaches.

The followers of Jesus continued to go to the Temple in Jerusalem to worship until just before it was destroyed.  The temple was the only place on earth where the animal sacrifices were being done.  Every morning and evening a lamb was offered there.  If that sacrifice actually represented what you have asserted, the followers of Jesus would have avoided worshiping there.  The fact that the followers of Jesus were still offering sacrifices in obedience to God's Old Testament instructions at least until Acts 21.  The unfulfilled prophecy that Jesus quoted from Isaiah 56 when he drove the merchants from the Temple includes a time Gentiles will bring burnt offerings that will be accepted on the altar.  The unfulfilled prophecy of the Temple in the final chapters in Ezekiel also includes animal sacrifices that are acceptable to God, and which do not contain even a hint of a denial of Messiah.

It sounds more like you are posting some sort of mixed up behavioral analyses, rather than scriptural exegesis here. Scripture IS plain and clear that none of those sacrifices would be "valid" after Christ was crucified:

Quote

For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. (Rom 6:10)

"Once" means the opposite of all the oft-repeated "sacrifices" in the Temple that you speak of here, and its essential to put it into context:

Quote

Heb 7:25  Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
Heb 7:26  For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
Heb 7:27  Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
Heb 7:28  For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

I would rather go with scripture, rather than anecdotal "rebuttals."

[BlessedMan]

8 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

We will all mess up along the way

a true "legalist" would call this "sinner's excuse #356. A true Christian would call it the same thing as does scripture:

Quote

For a just [person] falleth seven times, and riseth up again: but the wicked shall fall into mischief. (Prov 24:16)

 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 10/1/2019 at 8:49 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

You seem to want "works of the law" to include ONLY the added Oral Torah laws.  I've heard that argument from Messianics and Hebrew Roots for years.  It is the reason I have not joined them.

There is a very good reason to interpret the "works of the law" in that way.  The community that wrote the Dead Sea scrolls used the phrase "the works of the law" to refer to their community's man-made regulations that stipulated what a person needed to do to become and remain accepted as a member of the community.   The context in which Paul also used the phrase "works of the law" is dealing with the requirements that Gentile believers were being pressured to comply with to become accepted as full members of the community of believers.

Paul was advocating that Gentile believers should be accepted into the community because of the promises given to Abraham's descendants, of which Jesus is foremost, and the Gentile believer's position as a bondservant of Jesus, rather than on the basis of the traditional Jewish man-made requirements not found in Scripture.