Following OT Law

[Guest yod]

None of that diatribe has any relevence to what we are discussing so there is no need to reply. For the 13 millionth time, no one has ever said the Torah was given for justification. Ever. Period. Please pay attention.

Can the "Law of Christ" contradict His Father's expressed will? Are you saying that after the Cross, Yeshua required that we stop obeying the will of His Abba? Where do you get that? Where is that chapter and verse about the "Law of Christ" which says you MUST disobey the Torah to be a christian?

I realize that you think it's in there somewhere but I challenge you to find it. It isn't there.

The truth is

[mizzdy]

Yod wrote:

How can one interpret the spirit of the Law if they don't know the letter of it? It can be done through the Holy Spirit but there is a reason why God wrote it down for us with His own finger and then preserved it in book form until today. Christianity seems to reject what He has given for our protection because of a greco-philosophical aversion to "obeying" anything. As if obeying God could ever be "bad"?

How true. Yod you explain things so well! I hope you don't mind me copying what you wrote and sharing it with others? That obey word gets some everytime, what exactly do we obey? but the Word of God. God bless you brother.

Mizz

[JCISGD]

hi Yod, i think i see where you are coming from, and i agree the laws found in the OT are not burdensome if followed in the right spirit and that Christians are missing a blessing when they dismiss them as irrelevant.

Most serious Christians i know do not write off the OT but rather search its pages for the truths contained within.

I dont observe easter and christmas, i observe the Lords presence with me daily. I have no objection to saturday worship, i just choose sunday as did the disciples Acts 20:7.

What is being rejected is any idea that God is displeased with those who do not keep certain days, or restricted foods unless strangled etc.

The law says hate your enemy but the gospel says love him. We are no longer under the law but are under grace.

You ask how were unclean animals be made clean again, but ignored my proof that Peter was told to eat of them and ate as the gentiles ate.

I contend that they were not unclean for other nations and were not unclean by any defect. Remember God created them good and the fall did not change some to be unclean and not others. They were only unclean for the Jews.

If we dont allow our lives to be checked by testimony of great preachers used mightily of God, we are in danger of ignoring what God is doing. The apostles were given power to do miracles to verify their message and Christians are safe to model their lives on faithful preachers who modeled their lives on Jesus.

I do not see any of them urging the observance of days or dietry laws in the OT.

[Guest yod]

Will be out of touch for a couple of days and can't type the response with my finger on an iPhone

again, none of this is mandatory but you will never know what you've missed until you "do" the feasts. It really is your loss

to never experience that kind of communal celebration. You could find hundreds here that have done the feasts but I'll bet you can't find one who regrets it or was "burdened" by all the rejoicing either.

The vision of Peter had nothing to do with food. I think we do better to follow the apostles and disciples, even over "great preachers" who didn't know what they don't know either.

Someone else will have to explain Peter cause I gotta go

Shalom y'all and happy HanuChristmaKwanzaa to all

[JCISGD]

Will be out of touch for a couple of days and can't type the response with my finger on an iPhone

again, none of this is mandatory but you will never know what you've missed until you "do" the feasts. It really is your loss

to never experience that kind of communal celebration. You could find hundreds here that have done the feasts but I'll bet you can't find one who regrets it or was "burdened" by all the rejoicing either.

The vision of Peter had nothing to do with food. I think we do better to follow the apostles and disciples, even over "great preachers" who didn't know what they don't know either.

Someone else will have to explain Peter cause I gotta go

Shalom y'all and happy HanuChristmaKwanzaa to all

No one that i know thinks Peters vision was about food, but analogies are only used if they are a truthful representation. As i said earlier it would be wrong for God to give Peter this vision if it was not also ok for him to eat. I think you have sidestepped my point again that Peter lived as a gentile when around them and played the hypocrite by going back to Jewish laws when some Jews turned up.

When Shaul used the analogy of marriage (in Romans) only being valid while the husband is alive, to show that Christians were now free of Jewish law, he was using a truthful analogy, but he was not saying anyone was free from moral law.

I totally agree that the apostles were our example, but we are disagreeing on what that example was and so we also need the testimony of contempory great preachers who lived holy lives before God and were proved to be in the will of God.

I have already agreed that it is not burdensome to keep Gods commands, so i think its not right that you tar me with that brush.

If you enjoy keeping certain feasts and days all peace to ya, but God is not leading me to such things wether im missing out as you say or not. I get all the blessing i can contain by leading one sinner to Christ, and "food that some know nothing about".

Shallom.

[KC02]

When Shaul used the analogy of marriage (in Romans) only being valid while the husband is alive, to show that Christians were now free of Jewish law, he was using a truthful analogy, but he was not saying anyone was free from moral law.

Thanks JCISGD. That verse finally made sense to me; the lights just came on. Well there is another verse that speaks to the issue that I never seen before.

I think we need to be cautious before we adopt the "moral" part of the Law. In a large sense, all the Law is moral Laws. It is a very subjective job to divide the Law into such categories.

To answer Yod's questions about when did God make certain animals clean again... well it's the Law that made them unclean. Since we are not under the Law, even bacon is acceptable under the New Covenant.

I didn't say bacon was the healthiest food in the world but I'm not convinced that God prohibited certain foods based upon health reasons. I'm not sure what we could base that upon. I can't say for certain that He didn't, either...

[sheya joie]

I contend that [certain animals] were not unclean for other nations and were not unclean by any defect. Remember God created them good and the fall did not change some to be unclean and not others. They were only unclean for the Jews.

To answer Yod's questions about when did God make certain animals clean again... well it's the Law that made them unclean. Since we are not under the Law, even bacon is acceptable under the New Covenant.

I was surprised enough by these two statements to reply to them. While the Law in Lev is the first listing given of the unclean animals by name, which animals were clean and which unclean was known long before Moses and the giving of the Law.

How do we know this? Because way back in Gen 7:2, the LORD told Noah, 'Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.' How could Noah possibly obey the LORD in this if he didn't know which animals were clean and which unclean?

[sheya joie]

hi Yod, i think i see where you are coming from, and i agree the laws found in the OT are not burdensome if followed in the right spirit and that Christians are missing a blessing when they dismiss them as irrelevant.

Most serious Christians i know do not write off the OT but rather search its pages for the truths contained within.

I dont observe easter and christmas, i observe the Lords presence with me daily. I have no objection to saturday worship, i just choose sunday as did the disciples Acts 20:7.

I don't observe easter and christmas either. Not sure, though, if Acts 20:7 shows the disciples choosing Sunday to worship in preference to worship on Saturday.

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Knowing that the day began at nightfall, this meeting would have taken place on Sat night. Paul then would have been planning to leave 'on the morrow,' that would have been Sun morning - so he obviously wasn't considering Sunday to have replaced Saturday, else he would not be planning to start a trip on Sun morning. (No travelling on the Sabbath, so if he considered Sunday to be the Sabbath, he would not be travelling on it.)

What is being rejected is any idea that God is displeased with those who do not keep certain days, or restricted foods unless strangled etc.

I like Rom 14 about days and foods, don't you?

The law says hate your enemy but the gospel says love him. We are no longer under the law but are under grace.

While I do find the LORD Jesus saying this:

Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

where the Law itself says 'hate your enemy' I don't find. Could you tell me where that is, please?

[priest4Him]

I contend that [certain animals] were not unclean for other nations and were not unclean by any defect. Remember God created them good and the fall did not change some to be unclean and not others. They were only unclean for the Jews.

To answer Yod's questions about when did God make certain animals clean again... well it's the Law that made them unclean. Since we are not under the Law, even bacon is acceptable under the New Covenant.

I was surprised enough by these two statements to reply to them. While the Law in Lev is the first listing given of the unclean animals by name, which animals were clean and which unclean was known long before Moses and the giving of the Law.

How do we know this? Because way back in Gen 7:2, the LORD told Noah, 'Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.' How could Noah possibly obey the LORD in this if he didn't know which animals were clean and which unclean?

That is wright, the instruction to take more clean than unclean animals with him into the ark presupposes that Noah knew how to distinguish between the two classes. It is clear that this distinction did not originate with Moses. It reached back to the very earliest times, to divine instructions concerning sacrifices, for which only clean animals might be used (see Gen. 8:20).

Foreseeing the need for emergency food after the Flood had destroyed all vegetation, God knew man would need to eat, temporarily, the flesh of clean animals. Furthermore, they were needed for sacrificial purposes. For these obvious reasons God made provision to preserve enough clean animals that they might not become extinct. That in His first instructions to Noah (ch. 6:19) God made no distinction between clean and unclean animals can be explained by the fact that at that time, 120 years before the Flood, such minute instructions were not necessary.

[JCISGD]

hi Sheya and Preist4him, you raise a valid point that i was ignorant of and i conceed that Noah was aware of some creatures being unclean. Wether these are the same as given to the Jews is not so clear. We also do not know what it was that meant they were unclean. That Moses had to give a specific list of those clean and unclean does suggest that many were previuosly ignorant of this and did eat of both.

The fact remains that these rules were given to the Jews as a nation and Peter was told to eat of them. We know this was to show Peter that the Gentiles were now included in Gods plan of salvation, but it would be misleading for God to use a false analogy, and we would expect it to be clarified at a later point atleast, but instead Rom 14 is consistant with a new covenant and new laws.

Peter lived as a Gentile while he was with them, and it would be very strange if food was not eaten. What was it that Peter suddenly withdrew from when the Jews turned up, it would not be anything immoral and i think we can conclude he was at their table.

It is as much speculation to say they were unclean because of defect as it is for me to say it wasnt. But if it was for health reasons it would be strange that those nations who eat them even to this day have not twigged that these foods cause ill health. While it is scientific that pigs can carry parasites etc, this is more to do with the conditions they live in imo. Whatever the case be if anything is done while doubting it is sin.

Could Peter really eat with the gentiles with no doubt if these animals were still unclean for him.

Rom 14 is clear proof that something major has changed, and i contend that it is now more important to turn sinners from sin and back to God, than it is to observe certain rules given to the nation of Israel. Im not saying there is no value in these observances, just dont try to put them on other.

Hate your enemy is in an "eye for an eye" tit for tat and in the general rule of violence against any enemy.