Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Are Christians Permitted to Eat Unclean Animals?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
    Hello, I was having a conversation with Sparko on FB about the thread topic and he suggested that I bring it here. Everyone is welcome to comment, though I will copy a few posts for reference:

    Acts 10:14-15 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.”

    It should be noted that Peter did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean, but also added that he had never eaten anything that was common. Furthermore, God only rebuked Peter for his use of the word "common" and not for his use of the word "unclean". In other words, Peter had correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and had correctly declined to eat them in obedience to God's commands in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, but he had incorrectly identified the clean animals as common and had incorrectly declined to eat them in disobedience to God's command to kill and eat. So Peter's vision had nothing to do with a change in the status is unclean animals, but rather he interpreted his vision three times as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles.
    1) The main point of the vision was not food, it was the fact that the Gospel was not reserved just for the Jews. It should not be the *first* place we look in discussing food laws. However, I do believe it is *a* relevant passage.

    2) In this context, it is more likely that "common" and "unclean" are virtual synonyms than distinctly separate categories. More to the point, in v. 15, God corrects Peter not in the way YOU are suggesting, but by reminding him the He had "made" certain things clean, the clear intent being that those things *were* at one time "unclean."

    Perhaps you would be right if Peter has just said that he had never eaten anything that was unclean or if God had told Peter not to call unclean what he had made clean, but Peter added that he had also never eaten anything that was common, and God only rebuked him for referring to something that was clean as being common. Yet you are ignoring what God actually rebuked him for doing and applying it to something else in order to do away with what God has commanded even though Peter interpreted his vision three times without even hinting at unclean animals now being permissible to eat.
    See above. I don't believe you are interpreting the passage correctly.

    Please either agree that it is immoral to disobey God or cite an example where disobedience to God was considered to be moral.
    This is a dishonest dumb-ass debating tactic, akin to "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

    It is not disobedience if the Law is no longer in effect.

    When the Israelites were in exile in Babylon, the condition for their return to the Law was to first return to obedience to God's Law, which required them to have access to a temple that they didn't have access to while they were in exile, so if there is a law that has conditions that aren't met, then it is not disobeying God to refrain from obeying what it instructs and is thus not immoral, but we should nevertheless be faithful to obey as much as we can obey.

    In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, God said that it is not too difficult to obey His Law and that obedience brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life!
    In Gal. 3:10, Paul directly alludes to the "curse" for disobedience promised in Deut. 27:26. He follows by asserting that Christ "redeemed us from the curse of the Law," and in light of the context and of other Pauline writings, there's a good chance this is a synecdoche meaning we are redeemed from the curse of having to live by the Law.

    If someone is not acting in accordance with what the Law instructs, then they can't be said to be be following the heart of the Law. In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus summarized the Law as being about how to love God and our neighbor, so all of the other laws hang on the greatest two because they are all examples of what it looks like to correctly obey them.
    I have occasionally heard Law-enthusiasts claim that "Love your neighbor as yourself" covered how we are to relate to each other, and "Love the Lord your God..." covered all the various and sundry other laws. That's an interesting notion, but I believe it misses the essence of the point Jesus was making.

    In any case, all three of the Synoptists include those "Two Great Commandments," albeit in somewhat different forms and contexts. Matthew says the Second is "like" the First, and some lexicons say the word (homoios) literally means "the same as." Luke actually combines the two into one. That is consistent with Paul in Rom. 13 and Gal. 5, both of which say that obeying the Commandment to love your neighbor as yourself is all that is needed to fulfill the whole Law.

    Further, both Matthew and Luke include the instruction to "treat others as you wish others to treat you." In Matthew, this is explicitly said to sum up the entire OT (Law and Prophets).

    In Romans 2:13, Paul said only the doers of the Law will be justified. In Romans 2:26, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to God's Law, which is the same way to tell for a Jew (Deuteronomy 10:12-16). In Romans 3:31, our faith does not do away without need to obey God's Law, but rather our faith upholds it.
    You are reversing Paul's point by your cherry-picking. The next chapter (Rom. 4) shows that the *way* faith upholds the Law is that the Law itself declared that Abraham was justified by *faith*, irrespective of "works."

    In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy and part of God's instructions for how to do that is to refrain from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45).
    This is, frankly, stupid mix-and-match Bible "study." Look to what 1 Peter itself says for what "holy conduct" means. Don't drag in the Obsolete Covenant unless Peter explicitly cited it. And if he did, you need to explain how and why he did it.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Federalist.

    Nationalist Christian.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

    Proud member of the this space left blank community.

    Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

    Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

    Justice for Matthew Perna!

    Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
      Do you think that the correct way to interpret that verse is that Jesus was saying that we should rebel against what the Father has commanded? Did he not consider Leviticus and Deuteronomy to be Scripture?
      The "correct way to interpret that" is within the context. Mark was the one who quoted Jesus there, and Mark explained directly that in saying that, Jesus "declared all foods clean."

      Certainly Jesus considered Lev. and Deut. to be "Scripture." He also considered Himself to be I AM (John 8). As the One who revealed Himself and His memorial name to Moses at the burning bush, He had the authority to give the Law, and He had the authority to change or revoke it.
      Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

      Beige Federalist.

      Nationalist Christian.

      "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

      Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

      Proud member of the this space left blank community.

      Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

      Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

      Justice for Matthew Perna!

      Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
        The "correct way to interpret that" is within the context. Mark was the one who quoted Jesus there, and Mark explained directly that in saying that, Jesus "declared all foods clean."

        Certainly Jesus considered Lev. and Deut. to be "Scripture." He also considered Himself to be I AM (John 8). As the One who revealed Himself and His memorial name to Moses at the burning bush, He had the authority to give the Law, and He had the authority to change or revoke it.
        I like this example of Jesus declaring all foods as clean. This is an 'editorial' statement about the implications from what Jesus said. Jesus was able to stay within the Law (in order to fulfill it) while also indicating that there was a change going on with respect to the Law.

        Comment


        • #34
          I apologize if I got a bit overheated in some of my comments. I have no reservations about that in general, but I don't know that it was justified in this thread so far.
          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

          Beige Federalist.

          Nationalist Christian.

          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

          Proud member of the this space left blank community.

          Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

          Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

          Justice for Matthew Perna!

          Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
            I like this example of Jesus declaring all foods as clean. This is an 'editorial' statement about the implications from what Jesus said. Jesus was able to stay within the Law (in order to fulfill it) while also indicating that there was a change going on with respect to the Law.
            Right. That's one reason I do think it's reasonable to use the Acts 10 case in regard to foods, even though that's not the primary message. And it's also why I don't think the Acts 10 passage should be the first go-to. To me the Mark passage should come first, and then the Acts 10 passage can be taken as God reminding Peter of something he'd already been taught -- all foods are clean -- and using that to teach him something new by way of analogy.
            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

            Beige Federalist.

            Nationalist Christian.

            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

            Proud member of the this space left blank community.

            Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

            Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

            Justice for Matthew Perna!

            Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
              The way to do what is righteous or to avoid doing what is sinful is base on God's righteousness, not on a particular covenant, and God's righteousness is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to do what is righteous or to avoid doing what is sinful are eternally valid. Sin was in the world before the Law was given (Romans 5:13), so there was nothing that became righteous or sinful when the Mosaic Covenant was made or that ceased to be righteous or sinful after it has become obsolete. The existence of sin requires there to be a standard of what is and is not sin and that standard is God's Law, so Gentiles are either under God's Law and are obligated to refrain from sin, or are not under God's Law and have had no obligation to refrain from sin, have had no need for grace, and have had no need for Jesus to have given himself to redeem them from all Lawlessness.

              However, God is sovereign, so we are all under God's Law and obligated to refrain from sin, even those who aren't in a covenant relationship with Him, such as when God judged the world with the Flood for their sin or when He judged Sodom and Gomorrah for their Lawless deeds (2 Peter 2:6-8). The choice that we get to make is not whether or not we are under God's Law, but whether or not we are going to heed the Gospel message, repent of our sin, and obey God's Law.

              Even if God had never made any covenants with man, there there would still exist a way to walk in God's ways and express His character traits in accordance with His nature, which we should still follow. Likewise, even if God had made any covenants with man, followers of Christ should still seek by faith to follow the Law that he followed and spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey by word and by example.
              You are arguing moral values, and I agree, the moral values of God do not change and we are obligated to obey them. But dietary laws given to the Israelites were not moral laws. They were purity laws, meant to keep the Israelites separate from the surrounding tribes. There is nothing inherently immoral about eating pork, or mixing textiles. The same with the temple ceremonies and laws. We don't have to follow those either.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
                1,050 commandments is nothing to what Pharisaism has.

                Here's a link to a list of the 1,050 NT commandments with Scriptural references:

                https://www.cai.org/bible-studies/10...ament-commands

                Jesus was sinless, so he had a zeal and a dedication to obeying God's Law that was in common with the Pharisees. They were the people that he spent the bulk of his ministry interacting with, so they were the people that he thought he could work with, and a number of them became his followers, such as with Nicodemus and Paul. He never criticized them for obeying God's Law, but he did criticize them for not obeying it correctly. For example, in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing dill, mint, and cumin was something that they should be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of the Law, so he was not coming against his Law, but rather he was fulfilling it by teaching how to correctly obey it.

                If you are interested in watching a lecture by an ex-Pharisees who talks about what Phariseeism is and what Messiah's problem was with it in order to better understand to historical and cultural context of the Bible, then I can recommend one to you.
                most of those are not laws at all, and we are talking about obeying the Mosaic Law and you are listing NT advice (not laws)?

                it contains stuff like:

                Five Things to Consider:

                The ravens (LUKE 12:24)
                The lilies (LUKE 12:27-28)
                Truth (2 TIMOTHY 2:7)
                That you are capable of falling (GALATIANS 6:1)
                Christ (HEBREWS 3:1; HEBREWS 12:3)

                Three Things to Continue in:

                Love (JOHN 15:9)
                Prayer (ROMANS 12:12; COLOSSIANS 4:2)
                Truth (2 TIMOTHY 3:14)

                ---
                You quote Romans 3:31 out of context but ignore the previous verses:

                21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

                27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

                Paul is saying that having Faith in Christ IS upholding the law. The spirit of the law. Not the letter of the law.

                You are basically denying Christ's sacrifice for you by trying to fulfill the law yourself. And you will fail.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
                  1,050 commandments is nothing to what Pharisaism has.

                  Here's a link to a list of the 1,050 NT commandments with Scriptural references:

                  https://www.cai.org/bible-studies/10...ament-commands

                  Jesus was sinless, so he had a zeal and a dedication to obeying God's Law that was in common with the Pharisees. They were the people that he spent the bulk of his ministry interacting with, so they were the people that he thought he could work with, and a number of them became his followers, such as with Nicodemus and Paul. He never criticized them for obeying God's Law, but he did criticize them for not obeying it correctly. For example, in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing dill, mint, and cumin was something that they should be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of the Law, so he was not coming against his Law, but rather he was fulfilling it by teaching how to correctly obey it.

                  If you are interested in watching a lecture by an ex-Pharisees who talks about what Phariseeism is and what Messiah's problem was with it in order to better understand to historical and cultural context of the Bible, then I can recommend one to you.
                  That list is an impressive exercise in missing the forest for the trees. Jesus himself distilled the Law into 2 commandments; you're making the mistake of equating examples with commands. Love God, love neighbor; all else is how to do so.
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                    Was Peter's vision showing that he can now eat Gentiles?
                    Because they taste like chicken?
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
                      1,050 commandments is nothing to what Pharisaism has.

                      Here's a link to a list of the 1,050 NT commandments with Scriptural references:

                      https://www.cai.org/bible-studies/10...ament-commands...
                      In a bit if irony, here's what I got when I checked out that site...

                      wot.jpg
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        You are cherry picking the verse to ignore what God was telling Peter. Why were there both clean and unclean animals on the sheet if God was only talking about the "common" ones?
                        14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”
                        15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” 16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.
                        Notice God doesn't just say "common" -- he talks about cleansing. You only cleans something that is UNCLEAN.

                        And again, while he was showing that no animals were unclean, because he had cleansed them, he was talking about the Gentiles becoming part of the church:

                        28 Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. 29 Therefore I came without objection as soon as I was sent for. I ask, then, for what reason have you sent for me?”
                        If Peter had simply killed and eaten one of the clean animals, then he would have acted in obedience to God's command in His vision and in obedience to God's Law, so understanding why he objected to doing what God's Law permitted him to do is the key to understanding the point that God was making to Peter. According to the traditions of the elders, a clean animal that came in contact with an unclean animal became common, so the unclean animals were in his vision because they caused the clean animals to become common in Peter's mind. By mislabeling the clean animals, he had been acting against God's will, which he interpreted three times being in regard to mislabeling Gentiles without saying a word about unclean animals. Jesus had the same problem with things being mislabeled as common in Mark 7.

                        In Mark 7:1-5, it says that the Pharisees saw that the disciples ate with common hands and asked Jesus why they ate with common hands. In verses 3-4, it explains:

                        Mark 7:3-4 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.)

                        https://biblehub.com/greek/2839.htm

                        So the issue of having common hands is connected with man-made traditions of the elders and the same word was used in Acts 10:28 when Peter was referring a man-made law. So the Pharisees were raising their traditions to the level of being a command of God and in Jesus responded in Mark 7:6-13 by criticizing them for setting aside commands of God in order to establish their own traditions. Likewise, Jesus used the same word in verses 14-15, where he said that there is nothing outside of a person that by going into him can make him common, so he was continuing to speak against that man-made tradition, not even more hypocritically doing what he had just finished criticizing the Pharisees as being hypocrites for doing by setting aside God's command to refrain from eating unclean animals.

                        and Paul himself goes to great lengths to tell us not to let legalism overtake us. In Romans 2 and 3 he tells us that the law was given to show how sinful we are because we cannot keep it. But that through Jesus we have a righteousness that is not by the law but by grace. Jesus fulfilled the law so that we don't have to. Because we can't.
                        Nowhere does the Bible say that the Law was given to show us that can't keep it, but rather in Deuteronomy 30:11-14, God said that His Law was not too difficult to keep and that obedience to it brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus summarized the Law as being about how to love God and our neighbor, so saying that Jesus fulfilled the law so that we don't have to is like saying that Jesus loved the Father and our neighbor so that we don't have to, but rather he fulfilled the Law so that we would have an example to follow, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22). Furthermore, Jesus specifically said that he came not to abolish the Law (Matthew 5:17). In Romans 3:21-22, the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteous of God comes through faith in Christ for all who believe, so this has always been the one and only way to become righteous, however, in Romans 3:31, Paul did not want us to conclude that our faith therefore abolishes our need to obey God's Law, but rather rather he concluded by saying that our faith upholds God's Law.

                        Also Paul tells us that
                        Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

                        13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

                        16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has [l]not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.

                        20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
                        (NKJV)
                        Paul would never have described those who were teaching obedience to the holy, righteous, and good commands of God in accordance with the example that Christ set for his followers as taking people captive by philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition and not according to Christ. He went into more details about what these elemental spirits of the world are in Colossians 2:20-23. So the Colossians were keeping God's holy days in obedience to His commands and in accordance with Christ's example, they were being judged by pagans teaching human traditions and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, and Paul was writing to encourage them not to let any man judge them and keep them from obeying God.

                        Where does God ever tell Gentiles they have to obey the dietary laws given to the Israelites?
                        In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45).

                        And in Acts the Jerusalem council debated what parts of the Law the Gentiles should be subjected to and came up with this:

                        Act 15:23
                        To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

                        Greetings.

                        24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

                        Farewell.
                        Either the four laws listed in Acts 15:19-21 are an exhaustive list of everything that would ever be required for a mature Gentile believer or they are not. There are 1,050 commandments in the NT, so if they were an exhaustive list, then that would exclude over 99% of the commandments in the NT, including those expounded upon by Jesus. Clearly, they are not an exhaustive list for mature believers, but rather as stated, they were a list intended not to make things too difficult for new believers coming to faith, which they excused on verse 21 by saying that they would continue to learn about how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues. In other words, then you have a bunch of Gentiles coming out of paganism who are unfamiliar with Christianity, then in order to avoid overwhelming them them it becomes important to be on the same page about which things are important to teach them right away and which things can be taught over time as they mature in their faith.
                        "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                          Naming the exceptions who were righteous only shows that most were not righteous. Why were the others not righteous?
                          There is always a remnant of the righteous. In Romans 9:30-10:4, the Israelites had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowledge because they didn't understand that the righteousness of God comes only through faith in Christ. So they failed to obtain righteousness because they pursued the Law as though righteousness were by works in an effort to establish their own instead of by pursuing the Law as though righteousness were by faith, for Christ is the goal of the Law for everyone who has faith.

                          One example of injecting the idea of 'law' into the discussion is that you just said Jesus came as the embodiment of the Law where neither Heb 1:3 nor 2Pet 1;4 mention the law.
                          God's ways are His character traits and are described as being righteous and just (Genesis 18:19), righteous, blameless, merciful, pure, humble, light, perfect, true, liberty, and gentleness (2 Samuel 22:21-37), delightful (Psalms 37:23), and everlasting (Habakkuk 3:6), merciful, gracious, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, forgiving, just (Exodus 34:6-7), love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). There are many verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being instructions for how to walk in God's ways, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, and many others, so the Law was primarily given to teach us how to express God's character traits in accordance with His nature.

                          So when Hebrews 1:3 describes Jesus as being the exact imprint of God's nature, another way to put it would be the personification of God's character traits. The Bible often uses the same terms to describe the character of God as it does to describe the character of God's Law, which is because it is His instructions for how to express His character traits in accordance with His nature, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), or with justice, mercy, and faithfulness being weightier matters of the Law (Matthew 23:23). Christ expressed the divine nature/character traits of God/fruits of the Spirit through His actions and what that looked like was sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law, so that is what it should look like when we are in Christ and are meeting our obligation to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6).

                          God's Law is the way (Jeremiah 6:16-19), the truth (Psalms 119:142), and the life (Matthew 19:17), Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6), the Law is God's Word, and Jesus is God's Word made flesh, so again He came as the living embodiment of the Law. By expressing God's character traits through actions we are acting as a light to the world and are testifying to the world about who He is and are expressing our love for who He is (Deuteronomy 4:5-8, Matthew 5:13-16).

                          Were there prophecies being fulfilled for the Messiah to come? What was he to accomplish? Were the Jews obedient when Jesus was among them?
                          Indeed. He came to save us from our sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is defined as the transgression of God's Law (1 John 3:4). Some were, but on the whole they were not, and we should emulate those were were obedient, not those who were disobedient.
                          "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Soyeong,

                            Regarding the question of Jewish obedience, I am not finding anything that I would hope to hear as an answer, but this lack of the desired answer isn't a surprise. I'm just doing a little probing to see what people say on this.

                            As to the your interpretation of the law-focused gospel, I find no foothold to take the first steps toward such a reading. The problem isn't that I am unable to come to new understanding informed by scripture. Instead, there is just nothing in what you have said that convinces that a more standard reading is wrong. The list of a thousand so-called commands is all the worse since it is this obsessive compulsion that God seemed to strip from the Christian community. It seems that instead of debating on things of the earth and flesh (the law), God wanted us to debate on His nature -- to think about Him instead.

                            As to the interpretations you hold, it seems that even some of the most logical arguments against your view have been glossed over and unpersuasive to you. I guess you are just stuck with that view for now.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              In a bit if irony, here's what I got when I checked out that site...

                              [ATTACH=CONFIG]38245[/ATTACH]
                              So is this from a Christian-focused url blocker such that we are helped in finding good doctrinal sites?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
                                If Peter had simply killed and eaten one of the clean animals, then he would have acted in obedience to God's command in His vision and in obedience to God's Law, so understanding why he objected to doing what God's Law permitted him to do is the key to understanding the point that God was making to Peter. According to the traditions of the elders, a clean animal that came in contact with an unclean animal became common, so the unclean animals were in his vision because they caused the clean animals to become common in Peter's mind. By mislabeling the clean animals, he had been acting against God's will, which he interpreted three times being in regard to mislabeling Gentiles without saying a word about unclean animals. Jesus had the same problem with things being mislabeled as common in Mark 7.

                                In Mark 7:1-5, it says that the Pharisees saw that the disciples ate with common hands and asked Jesus why they ate with common hands. In verses 3-4, it explains:

                                Mark 7:3-4 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.)

                                https://biblehub.com/greek/2839.htm

                                So the issue of having common hands is connected with man-made traditions of the elders and the same word was used in Acts 10:28 when Peter was referring a man-made law. So the Pharisees were raising their traditions to the level of being a command of God and in Jesus responded in Mark 7:6-13 by criticizing them for setting aside commands of God in order to establish their own traditions. Likewise, Jesus used the same word in verses 14-15, where he said that there is nothing outside of a person that by going into him can make him common, so he was continuing to speak against that man-made tradition, not even more hypocritically doing what he had just finished criticizing the Pharisees as being hypocrites for doing by setting aside God's command to refrain from eating unclean animals.
                                Your walls of text make it hard to answer you so I will just pick that parts that I feel like are most important and apologize if I miss anything.

                                1. Peter couldn't kill and eat anything, it was a vision
                                2. The purpose of the vision was an analogy. God was saying that just like the animals in the vision, both clean and unclean are now all clean, so both the Jew and the Gentile belong to God and are "clean"
                                3. If the animals were not combined all into one category of "clean" then neither are Jews and Gentiles. You can't have it both ways.
                                4. The rest of your argument above is just poor rationalization on your pat. Like someone else said, you are making much to big of a deal out of the word "common" and ignoring that God said he "cleansed" what Peter was refusing to eat, which means whatever Peter was referring to was "unclean"





                                Nowhere does the Bible say that the Law was given to show us that can't keep it, but rather in Deuteronomy 30:11-14, God said that His Law was not too difficult to keep and that obedience to it brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus summarized the Law as being about how to love God and our neighbor, so saying that Jesus fulfilled the law so that we don't have to is like saying that Jesus loved the Father and our neighbor so that we don't have to, but rather he fulfilled the Law so that we would have an example to follow, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22). Furthermore, Jesus specifically said that he came not to abolish the Law (Matthew 5:17). In Romans 3:21-22, the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteous of God comes through faith in Christ for all who believe, so this has always been the one and only way to become righteous, however, in Romans 3:31, Paul did not want us to conclude that our faith therefore abolishes our need to obey God's Law, but rather rather he concluded by saying that our faith upholds God's Law.
                                1. Yes the bible does say we can't keep the law. Read Romans and Hebrews. All have fallen short of the Glory of God and all of our good deeds are as rags, etc. This is why Jesus was sent, because nobody could keep the Law except him. 2. Jesus didn't abolish the law, he kept the law so that we could receive HIS righteousness because we can't keep it.
                                3. And again, you are adding to the Law and adding in stuff that was purely for the Old Covenant between God and the Israelites which they broke over and over. You don't have that covenant with God, You have a new covenant with him through Jesus. A different contract. And it doesn't include dietary restrictions except abstaining from blood and food sacrificed to idols (which Paul even said was not a restriction if it didn't bother you)

                                You are being overly legalistic.



                                Paul would never have described those who were teaching obedience to the holy, righteous, and good commands of God in accordance with the example that Christ set for his followers as taking people captive by philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition and not according to Christ.
                                He went into more details about what these elemental spirits of the world are in Colossians 2:20-23. So the Colossians were keeping God's holy days in obedience to His commands and in accordance with Christ's example, they were being judged by pagans teaching human traditions and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, and Paul was writing to encourage them not to let any man judge them and keep them from obeying God.
                                So you just ignore what Paul actually said and substitute what you want him to have said? That my friend, is eisogesis. Reading into the text what is not there. He was talking about people LIKE YOU who would hold captive those who belong to Christ with false humility, telling us keep the parts of the Mosaic Law that we are not even subject to. Paul was condemning people like YOU, Soyeoung. You should take that to heart and repend.


                                Either the four laws listed in Acts 15:19-21 are an exhaustive list of everything that would ever be required for a mature Gentile believer or they are not. There are 1,050 commandments in the NT, so if they were an exhaustive list, then that would exclude over 99% of the commandments in the NT, including those expounded upon by Jesus.
                                Again with the 1050 commandments? I already told you that most of those were not commandments, but advice and examples on how to live. AND we are discussing whether Christians are under the Mosaic Law, specifically the dietary laws. So where in those 1050 commandments you refer to does it say I can't eat bacon?

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X