Make No Mistake! God Will Kill Some For Not Keeping His Dietary Laws! Part 2

[Rach1370]

Xander has replied to some of my posts. Unfortunately he has missed the point completely. I am often dismayed how people can quote a verse out of the bible, but not bother to read the entire passage; which completely changes the context of the meaning. Hebrews is completely and totally about the new covenant of faith under Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection.

Here are some of his posts, and my rebuttal to them:

First Rach, I would like to point out this scripture you mentioned. *Heb 9:28 - so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.


The first time Jesus came was to deal with sin. Why? Because the wages of sin is death. Something had to die for sin. The Old Covenant was the sacrificing of animals for sin, but the New Covenant is when Christ came He became the final sacrifice for sin. But we must ask what is sin? 1 John 3:4 say's sin is breaking God's law. So when Jesus returns the second time He will deal with the sinner. New Testament verse, for those who don't consider the Old Testament prophets writings.
2 Thess: 1:[sup]7[/sup]And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, [sup]8[/sup]In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

"Taking vengeance" seem to me, Jesus will be dealing with sinner.

Any sinner not covered by the blood of Jesus, sure. But if you think that Jesus death and resurrection was not to save those who love him and ask for his forgiveness, then you have totally missed the point of the Gospel.



Now since we are reading the writings of Hebrews, lets read
Hebrew 8:[sup]7[/sup]For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. [sup]8[/sup]For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

[sup]9[/sup]Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

[sup]10[/sup]For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:<br style=""> <br style="">

And if we continue the passage: 13. In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

And to look at the meaning of the passages you just quoted (heb 8:7):

The Mosaic covenant was not wrong; rather, it was weak and ineffective (7:18–19) since it could not bring people to perfection. God's purposes in the old covenant (among others) were to inform his people of the moral law, to convict them of sin (10:3), and (prominently featured in the book of Hebrews) to establish the pattern of sacrifice, priesthood, and promise of salvation that is fulfilled in Christ. Yet the inability of sinful humanity to achieve perfection under the old covenant required the promise of a second covenant, proving the ineffectiveness (i.e., the shortcomings) of the first.

God blames sinful humanity for the failure of the first covenant. Jeremiah 31:31–34, quoted here, supports several arguments in Hebrews: (1) this “second” covenant (Heb. 8:7) comes after the Mosaic covenant (the days are coming, v. 8); (2) it is established by the Lord (vv. 8, 13); (3) it is a new covenant (vv. 8, 13); (4) it is unlike the former covenant of the exodus (vv. 9, 13); (5) the former covenant failed because of the fault of Israel (for they did not continue in my covenant, v. 9; see v. 8); (6) this new covenant involves a transformation of the inner life of its recipients by writing God's laws into their minds and hearts so that all know him (vv. 10–11; see 10:14–17; cf. 9:9); and (7) it brings true, final forgiveness of sins (8:12; see 9:15; 10:12–18). (these excerpts are from my study bible:ESV)



Hebrews 10:[sup]28[/sup]He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: [sup]29[/sup]Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

"The blood of the covenant", what covenant? The New Covenant!! Based on the same Laws and Commandments.

Uh, no…based on Jesus Christ! And I’m sorry, but I have to laugh here…have you actually read the entire passage? It overwhelming supports a new covenant based on faith and the blood of Jesus! Shall we read it from the beginning??

Heb 10:19 Therefore brother, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, (20)by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, (21)and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith… (26)For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,(27) but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

Commentary on these verses: Call to Faith and Endurance. The exposition of the superiority of Christ and his salvation culminates in exhortations to faith and perseverance (10:19–39; 12:1–29) and in an extended series of examples of how faith endures through hope in God (11:1–40).

Willfully sinning and refusing to repent. The author refers especially to people within the Christian community, who have thus heard the truth. The fact that they “go on sinning deliberately even after receiving knowledge of the truth” indicates that the people in view are not (and never were) genuine believers; that is, these are people who have never genuinely embraced the gospel in a way that has resulted in a life of faith, obedience, and the bearing of fruit. “no longer remains a sacrifice for sins”. This could refer to the inability of willful, unrepentant sinners to be restored (see 6:4–6), or more likely to the fact that there is no place for them to turn for forgiveness outside of Christ's sacrifice—which they have rejected. judgment. All people face judgment (see 9:27–28), and apart from Christ's sacrifice his adversaries receive eternal damnation. These verses, then, function as a means used by God to call genuine Christians to faith, obedience, and perseverance; and, if there is no evidence of fruit in one's life, to challenge such people to give fearful consideration as to whether they are in fact genuine believers.

In the Mosaic law, the death penalty comes upon those who blaspheme God or who worship other deities (e.g., Lev. 24:13–16; Deut. 17:2–7), so in the superior new covenant the expectation of judgment would be even stronger. How much worse punishment … will be deserved by the one who … ? The description that follows is of a person who has deliberately, consciously, and persistently deserted “the living God” (cf. Heb. 3:12; 10:31; 12:22), renouncing Christ and the community of faith (6:4–8). It is a description of outright apostasy, involving a person who has done three specific things: (1) spurned the Son of God, (2) profaned the blood of the covenant, and (3) outraged the Spirit of grace. Such rejection of the knowledge of the truth (10:26) through willful disobedience is tantamount to trampling upon God's Son, reckoning his blood to be defiled, and insulting the Spirit who has offered such grace; the one who does this deserves eternal judgment (v. 27). Some have argued that the statement by which he was sanctified (Gk. hagiazō, “set apart,” “sanctify”) indicates that the person in view here was a true believer (see note on 3:14, however, indicating a fundamental difficulty with this view). Given the immediate context, it seems most likely that “he was sanctified” should be understood in the sense of someone who had been “set apart” or identified as an active participant in the Christian community of believers, but who has subsequently committed apostasy by renouncing his identification with other believers, by denying the “knowledge of the truth” that he had heard, and by repudiating the work and the person of Christ himself. Such a person's apostasy is thus evidence that his identification with the Christian community was only superficial and that he was not a genuine believer. Another view is that the author is confident that the grave warning in these verses will be the means by which those who are truly elect will be braced to persevere in faith and obedience, and so to be saved . (also ESV study notes) sorry for the lack of original thoughts, but these are so well articulated, and I hope that you may in fact take more notice of them than me...after all, they were written by many respected bible scholars!




Rach

 

[Martin W.]

Eccl12.13

Is your point that gentile Christians who have a righteousness by faith should all convert to obeying Jewish law?

Just trying to understand your bottom line. Thanks.

I admire anyone who tries to keep the law , I appreciate clean and healthy foods , but I do not feel my salvation depends on it , nor do I feel I will be punished for the laws I fail to keep.

If you are keeping the law I think that is admirable and I congratulate you , but do you feel it is a requirement for all (Christians) ?

Many thanks

Martin.

 

[jiggyfly]

Very good question Martin, this is something I hope to see a response by both Eccl. and Xander.

 

[Eccl.12:13]

Another point I must make is this....all these laws were for the Jewish nation......those laws never did apply to the Gentiles.

First let's let God's word prove that His laws were NOT only for the nation of Israel;

Exod. 12
[49] One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Num.15
[16] One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.
[29] Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.

So is your statement correct? Not according to God's word!

God's laws are for ALL that decide to follow the true and living God!

And was it only the nation of Israel that were present when the laws were given? Let's read...

Exod.12
[37] And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.
[38] And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.

So it was NOT only Israel that departed Egypt and traveled. There were Gentiles also.

Now do you really think God would punish an Israelite for picking up stones on the Sabbath and NOT do the same for a non-Israelite? Of course not!

God does not have two agendas.

Next.....if you could please answer the questions;


Why is God going to consume 'unbelievers' that eat swine, the mouse and the abomination? If they are 'unbelievers' why is God holding them accountable for what they eat?


And to address Heb.7...can you tell me just which law was changed?

Heb.7
[12] For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

So just which of the over 600 laws was there a NEED to change?



Thou shall not kill?
Thou shall not commit adultry?
Thou shall not covet?
Thou shall not steel?

Or how about this one that is NOT part of the (10) and yet we are STILL to keep it......

Thou shall not have respect of persons?

Again I ask....just which law HAD to be changed?

When Paul read the law and found it was wrong to covet do you not think he told others that it was wrong and told them NO to covet also?

Rom.7
[7] What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Now do you think Paul only read the ONE law out of the books of Moses?

Do you think when he read, 'Do not steal.', he stopped!
Do you think when he read, 'Do not lie., he stopped!
Do you think when he read ALL of the other laws, did he not comply?

And do you tihnk he told others they too had to comply?

Was it any of these laws that needed to be changed?


Just which law was it that was changed?

 

[Xanderoc]

Xander has replied to some of my posts. Unfortunately he has missed the point completely. I am often dismayed how people can quote a verse out of the bible, but not bother to read the entire passage; which completely changes the context of the meaning. Hebrews is completely and totally about the new covenant of faith under Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection.

Here are some of his posts, and my rebuttal to them:

First Rach, I would like to point out this scripture you mentioned. *Heb 9:28 - so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.


The first time Jesus came was to deal with sin. Why? Because the wages of sin is death. Something had to die for sin. The Old Covenant was the sacrificing of animals for sin, but the New Covenant is when Christ came He became the final sacrifice for sin. But we must ask what is sin? 1 John 3:4 say's sin is breaking God's law. So when Jesus returns the second time He will deal with the sinner. New Testament verse, for those who don't consider the Old Testament prophets writings.
2 Thess: 1:[sup]7[/sup]And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, [sup]8[/sup]In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

"Taking vengeance" seem to me, Jesus will be dealing with sinner.

Any sinner not covered by the blood of Jesus, sure. But if you think that Jesus death and resurrection was not to save those who love him and ask for his forgiveness, then you have totally missed the point of the Gospel.



Now since we are reading the writings of Hebrews, lets read
Hebrew 8:[sup]7[/sup]For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. [sup]8[/sup]For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

[sup]9[/sup]Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

[sup]10[/sup]For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:<br style=""> <br style="">

And if we continue the passage: 13. In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

And to look at the meaning of the passages you just quoted (heb 8:7):

The Mosaic covenant was not wrong; rather, it was weak and ineffective (7:18–19) since it could not bring people to perfection. God's purposes in the old covenant (among others) were to inform his people of the moral law, to convict them of sin (10:3), and (prominently featured in the book of Hebrews) to establish the pattern of sacrifice, priesthood, and promise of salvation that is fulfilled in Christ. Yet the inability of sinful humanity to achieve perfection under the old covenant required the promise of a second covenant, proving the ineffectiveness (i.e., the shortcomings) of the first.

God blames sinful humanity for the failure of the first covenant. Jeremiah 31:31–34, quoted here, supports several arguments in Hebrews: (1) this “second” covenant (Heb. 8:7) comes after the Mosaic covenant (the days are coming, v. 8); (2) it is established by the Lord (vv. 8, 13); (3) it is a new covenant (vv. 8, 13); (4) it is unlike the former covenant of the exodus (vv. 9, 13); (5) the former covenant failed because of the fault of Israel (for they did not continue in my covenant, v. 9; see v. 8); (6) this new covenant involves a transformation of the inner life of its recipients by writing God's laws into their minds and hearts so that all know him (vv. 10–11; see 10:14–17; cf. 9:9); and (7) it brings true, final forgiveness of sins (8:12; see 9:15; 10:12–18). (these excerpts are from my study bible:ESV)



Hebrews 10:[sup]28[/sup]He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: [sup]29[/sup]Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

"The blood of the covenant", what covenant? The New Covenant!! Based on the same Laws and Commandments.

Uh, no…based on Jesus Christ! And I’m sorry, but I have to laugh here…have you actually read the entire passage? It overwhelming supports a new covenant based on faith and the blood of Jesus! Shall we read it from the beginning??

Heb 10:19 Therefore brother, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, (20)by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, (21)and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith… (26)For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,(27) but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

Commentary on these verses: Call to Faith and Endurance. The exposition of the superiority of Christ and his salvation culminates in exhortations to faith and perseverance (10:19–39; 12:1–29) and in an extended series of examples of how faith endures through hope in God (11:1–40).

Willfully sinning and refusing to repent. The author refers especially to people within the Christian community, who have thus heard the truth. The fact that they “go on sinning deliberately even after receiving knowledge of the truth” indicates that the people in view are not (and never were) genuine believers; that is, these are people who have never genuinely embraced the gospel in a way that has resulted in a life of faith, obedience, and the bearing of fruit. “no longer remains a sacrifice for sins”. This could refer to the inability of willful, unrepentant sinners to be restored (see 6:4–6), or more likely to the fact that there is no place for them to turn for forgiveness outside of Christ's sacrifice—which they have rejected. judgment. All people face judgment (see 9:27–28), and apart from Christ's sacrifice his adversaries receive eternal damnation. These verses, then, function as a means used by God to call genuine Christians to faith, obedience, and perseverance; and, if there is no evidence of fruit in one's life, to challenge such people to give fearful consideration as to whether they are in fact genuine believers.

In the Mosaic law, the death penalty comes upon those who blaspheme God or who worship other deities (e.g., Lev. 24:13–16; Deut. 17:2–7), so in the superior new covenant the expectation of judgment would be even stronger. How much worse punishment … will be deserved by the one who … ? The description that follows is of a person who has deliberately, consciously, and persistently deserted “the living God” (cf. Heb. 3:12; 10:31; 12:22), renouncing Christ and the community of faith (6:4–8). It is a description of outright apostasy, involving a person who has done three specific things: (1) spurned the Son of God, (2) profaned the blood of the covenant, and (3) outraged the Spirit of grace. Such rejection of the knowledge of the truth (10:26) through willful disobedience is tantamount to trampling upon God's Son, reckoning his blood to be defiled, and insulting the Spirit who has offered such grace; the one who does this deserves eternal judgment (v. 27). Some have argued that the statement by which he was sanctified (Gk. hagiazō, “set apart,” “sanctify”) indicates that the person in view here was a true believer (see note on 3:14, however, indicating a fundamental difficulty with this view). Given the immediate context, it seems most likely that “he was sanctified” should be understood in the sense of someone who had been “set apart” or identified as an active participant in the Christian community of believers, but who has subsequently committed apostasy by renouncing his identification with other believers, by denying the “knowledge of the truth” that he had heard, and by repudiating the work and the person of Christ himself. Such a person's apostasy is thus evidence that his identification with the Christian community was only superficial and that he was not a genuine believer. Another view is that the author is confident that the grave warning in these verses will be the means by which those who are truly elect will be braced to persevere in faith and obedience, and so to be saved . (also ESV study notes) sorry for the lack of original thoughts, but these are so well articulated, and I hope that you may in fact take more notice of them than me...after all, they were written by many respected bible scholars!




Rach

Rach , It is apparent that you missed understood what I was saying, so I am going to try again. The first covenant that was inefficient in that it couldn't make anyone perfect, and that had to be change. It wasn't the commandments of God. It was the sacrificial law. Now we know who came with the sacrificial law; the Levitical priest hood. The sacrificial law was added so man can atone for his sins.From the beginning when man sinned against God, something died to cover there sins. Read Genesis, when Adam and Eve committed sin again God, they were naked and God covered there nakedness(sin) with animal skin. Gen. 3:21
So from the beginning something died to cover man's transgression.
The Levitcal Priest Hood was in charge of the temple duties, and the sacrifices needed to atone for his sins, and the sins of the people. Now let take a close look what's inside the temple.

Ex 25:[sup]16[/sup]And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee.[sup]21[/sup]And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. [sup]22[/sup]And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

Your probably asking why am I showing you this. Well, the Lord sat upon the mercy seat above the testimony, which was the law. The commandments of God. And the High priest was to go behind the Vail to atone for man unintentional sin once a year, on the day of Atonement. When Jesus died the temple vail rip in half, representing the end of animal sacrifices. The reason I brought up the testimony, and mercy seat, was to show in comparison the temple that had the law written on stone, behind the vail, compares to us, the church. We are the temple now, and the law that God wrote down on stone,and had Moses put them in the temple is the same law God said He would pit on our hearts and minds. Jesus is our New High Priest, He rip that vail that was between man and God. Through His sacrifice we can go before the Father and ask for forgiveness for our unintentional sins. He is our intercessor, just like Moses was Israel intercessor. The carnal law that couldn't work was the sacrificial law and the system that came with it. So now when we read Heb 8 we get a little understanding.


Hebrews 8:


[sup]7[/sup]For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

[sup]8[/sup]For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

[sup]9[/sup]Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

[sup]10[/sup]For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Now the first covenant that had the laws put on stone and put inside the temple, inside the ark, behind the vail, if you sinned animal sacrifice took place by the High Priest.

But the second covenant had the same laws that were on stone, put inside the new temple, on your heart and mind. No more vail, Jesus being our High Priest and sacrifice for sin.

So when we read Hebrews 10, it make perfect sense.

Heb 10:


[sup]1[/sup]For the law (sacrificial law) having a shadow of good things to come ( Jesus sacrifice), and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

[sup]2[/sup]For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

[sup]3[/sup]But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

[sup]4[/sup]For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

[sup]10[/sup]By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

[sup]11[/sup]And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

[sup]15[/sup]Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

[sup]16[/sup]This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

[sup]17[/sup]And their sins( transgression of the law) and iniquities will I remember no more.

[sup]18[/sup]Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

[sup]26[/sup]For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

[sup]27[/sup]But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

[sup]28[/sup]He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

[sup]29[/sup]Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Hopefully I have clarified myself with this post. I believe if a person comes to the knowledge of the truth, and repents of their sin,and excepts Jesus Christ sacrifice, they have a chance to receive salvation. I say chance, because if a person deviates from the faith, and goes back to the world, well they won't be saved when He returns. My question to you Rach is, do you believe when Jesus sets up His kingdom on earth, He will allow man to eat unclean foods, foods He deemed unclean. And do you think He will allow people to break his sabbath, and not keep His feast days?

 

[Xanderoc]

Eccl12.13

Is your point that gentile Christians who have a righteousness by faith should all convert to obeying Jewish law?

Just trying to understand your bottom line. Thanks.

I admire anyone who tries to keep the law , I appreciate clean and healthy foods , but I do not feel my salvation depends on it , nor do I feel I will be punished for the laws I fail to keep.

If you are keeping the law I think that is admirable and I congratulate you , but do you feel it is a requirement for all (Christians) ?

Many thanks

Martin.

The problem with the understanding of some of the people on this forum is trying to separate Israel from the Gentiles. Paul say there is no difference between Jew or Greek (Gentile)!!
1 Cor.12:[sup]13[/sup]For we were all baptized by[sup][a][/sup] one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Acts 20:[sup]21[/sup]I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

Romans 1: [sup]15[/sup]So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. [sup]16[/sup]For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

[sup]17[/sup]For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Rom 10:[sup]12[/sup]For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

The Gospel was given to Israel first, the same Gospel was given to the Gentiles.

Isaiah said it best!!!

Isaiah 56:
[sup]2[/sup]Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.

[sup]3[/sup]Neither let the son of the stranger (Gentile), that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.

What you fail to realize is, this is the God of Israel, and His covenants were made with Israel, so for us to join in with the Lord, we have to keep the same covenants. What ever Israel has to do, the stranger has to do also. Paul stated that the stranger (Gentile) was grafted into the fold.

Romans 11: [sup]17[/sup]And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree ( Gentiles), wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

[sup]18[/sup]Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

[sup]19[/sup]Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

[sup]20[/sup]Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:


They were broken off for not keeping the commandments of God, and not believing in the One ( Messiah)!!!!


[sup]21[/sup]For if God spared not the natural branches (Israel), take heed lest he also spare not thee.


This means we have to do what Israel failed to do.... Believe in Jesus, His Commandments, His Laws, His Feast Days, and His Sabbath Day!!!


[sup]22[/sup]Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: ( how do you continue in his goodness?) otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

[sup]23[/sup] And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.


So until the people on this forum, and the world realize there is no difference between Israel and the stranger.


That what ever Israel has to do to make it into the kingdom of God


(7th Day Sabbath, Feast Days, Dietary Law, Commandments,)

The Gentiles (stranger) has to do the same....God is a just and fair God...He isn't going to kill an Israelite for picking up sticks on the Sabbath Day, and then come in the flesh and say the Gentiles don't have to keep it!!!! He is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow!!!! All this folly, and false doctrine is do to the lack of understanding Paul's writings!!!!


The only thing Israel and the Gentiles are not to do is sacrifice animals. Jesus was are sacrifice!!!!!

Amen, Lord Jesus.
I can't buy Salvation or work for it. Even my faith is from the One and Only who is the Author and Perfector. Jesus.

John 3:
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

Not personal towards anyone....
This dietary law, were we saved before we had knowlege of it or after. I myself was saved by Christ before I had knowledge. Since Christ washed away all my sins before I knew of this dietary law. Will Christ kill me? For me NO! He washed away all my sins, yesterday, today and tomorrow. He remembers them no more. God looks at me through the blood of Jesus. What good I do in this body is done by Jesus in me. His Spirit leading my way and watching my back. I am not my own and have been bought at a price for God. I have been bought with the precious blood of Jesus.
2 Corinthians 3:3
You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

2 Corinthians 3:6
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.


God Bless bud02,
Mercy

Just answer one question. Why did God have Isaiah write, When He returns He will kill people for eating unclean foods? Isaiah 66:15-16
Because, besides what bud02 thinks, this event has not occurred. I understand all your trying to say Mercy, just answer me this one question. It was written for a reason. God word wasn't written in vain. Isaiah said the slain of the Lord will be many.Or is it you haven't realized it yet, When Christ returns He is going to kill the unbeliever. Those who don't believe all of His word!

 

[Martin W.]

The problem with the understanding of some of the people on this forum is trying to separate Israel from the Gentiles. Paul say there is no difference between Jew or Greek (Gentile)!!
1 Cor.12:[sup]13[/sup]For we were all baptized by[sup][a][/sup] one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Acts 20:[sup]21[/sup]I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

Romans 1: [sup]15[/sup]So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. [sup]16[/sup]For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

[sup]17[/sup]For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Rom 10:[sup]12[/sup]For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

The Gospel was given to Israel first, the same Gospel was given to the Gentiles.

Xander : You must apply those verses in the proper context.

The proper context is that the Jews (under the law) and the gentiles (not under the law) are equal in that both must have faith in Jesus. The same Lord is Lord for all.

The message has nothing to do with keeping (or not keeping) the Law.

Martin.

 

[Xanderoc]

Xander : You must apply those verses in the proper context.

The proper context is that the Jews (under the law) and the gentiles (not under the law) are equal in that both must have faith in Jesus. The same Lord is Lord for all.

The message has nothing to do with keeping (or not keeping) the Law.

Martin.

Martin explain Isaiah 56. I see you didn't bother addressing that. Isaiah 56: 3[sup]3[/sup]Neither let the son of the stranger (Gentile), that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: You can't seperate the two. What is good for the Jew( Israel) is good for the stranger (gentile) too!! God isn't a unjust God. He is not going to have one people follow His law, and have another not follow His law. Again, the only Law we are not to folloew in the sacrificial law. Jesus changed that law with His sacrifice. That was the law added in Galation 3. Paul said what was good for the Jew was good for the gentile. They must all have one mind and one spirit. Believe in Jesus Christ, and KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS.

 

[bud02]

Just answer one question. Why did God have Isaiah write, When He returns He will kill people for eating unclean foods? Isaiah 66:15-16
Because, besides what bud02 thinks, this event has not occurred. I understand all your trying to say Mercy, just answer me this one question. It was written for a reason. God word wasn't written in vain. Isaiah said the slain of the Lord will be many.Or is it you haven't realized it yet, When Christ returns He is going to kill the unbeliever. Those who don't believe all of His word!

The evident is problem that there are to many NT scriptures that contradict your interpretation. And zero NT scriptures that support it, in that case we have to look for the intended meaning of Isa 66-15. Isaiah is speaking to who? and using terms they were familiar with. People he have given no less than a half dozen verses that contradict your your understanding in my book that indicates you are in error.

Hopefully I have clarified myself with this post. I believe if a person comes to the knowledge of the truth, and repents of their sin,and excepts Jesus Christ sacrifice, they have a chance to receive salvation. I say chance, because if a person deviates from the faith, and goes back to the world, well they won't be saved when He returns. My question to you Rach is, do you believe when Jesus sets up His kingdom on earth, He will allow man to eat unclean foods, foods He deemed unclean. And do you think He will allow people to break his sabbath, and not keep His feast days?

In this post you go into great detail about the 10 commandments. Then in the end you combine the book of the law with the same stature as then 10.
The Sabbath is a 10 commandment, Sabbath days are not, nor is eating unclean foods a commandment.

And God clearly states in Acts that He has made the unclean foods presented to Peter CLEAN.

Rereading your post again I simply can't believe the great detail and care you take in accurately describing the temple, mercy seat and the place the 10 laws on stone rested under the mercy seat "within the ark". Absolutely perfect until you get to the last question He will allow man to eat unclean foods, foods He deemed unclean. And do you think He will allow people to break his sabbath, and not keep His feast days? injecting the book of the law into the mercy seat, shame on you. You know as well as I do that the book of law from Moses was never placed in the ark or the "mercy seat" You can't find a verse to support it, its just plan deceptive again shame on you, for trying to make the 10 commandments and the book of law one and the same. Show Rach the scriptural evidence that the book of law EVER was placed in the ark "inside the mercy seat" as you so cleverly implied.

\
Ex 25:[sup]16[/sup]And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee.[sup]21[/sup]And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. [sup]22[/sup]And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

Your probably asking why am I showing you this. Well, the Lord sat upon the mercy seat above the testimony, which was the law. The commandments of God. And the High priest was to go behind the Vail to atone for man unintentional sin once a year, on the day of Atonement. When Jesus died the temple vail rip in half, representing the end of animal sacrifices. The reason I brought up the testimony, and mercy seat, was to show in comparison the temple that had the law written on stone, behind the vail, compares to us, the church. We are the temple now, and the law that God wrote down on stone,and had Moses put them in the temple is the same law God said He would pit on our hearts and minds. Jesus is our New High Priest, He rip that vail that was between man and God. Through His sacrifice we can go before the Father and ask for forgiveness for our unintentional sins. He is our intercessor, just like Moses was Israel intercessor. The carnal law that couldn't work was the sacrificial law and the system that came with it. So now when we read Heb 8 we get a little understanding.

 

[Eccl.12:13]

Bud02:

Can you answer the following which have been asked of you before;

First let's let God's word prove that His laws were NOT only for the nation of Israel;

Exod. 12
[49] One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Num.15
[16] One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.
[29] Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.

So are God's laws ONLY for Israel?

God's laws are for ALL that decide to follow the true and living God!

And was it only the nation of Israel that were present when the laws were given?

Let's read...

Exod.12
[37] And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.
[38] And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.

So it was NOT only Israel that departed Egypt and traveled. There were Gentiles also.

Now do you really think God would punish an Israelite for picking up stones on the Sabbath and NOT do the same for a non-Israelite? Of course not!

God does not have two agendas.

Next.....if you could please answer the questions about unbelievers;


Why is God going to consume 'unbelievers' that eat swine, the mouse and the abomination? If they are 'unbelievers' why is God holding them accountable for what they eat?


And to address Heb.7...can you tell me just which law was changed?

Heb.7
[12] For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

So just which of the over 600 laws was there a NEED to change?



Thou shall not kill?
Thou shall not commit adultry?
Thou shall not covet?
Thou shall not steel?

Or how about this one that is NOT part of the (10) and yet we are STILL to keep it......

Thou shall not have respect of persons?

Again I ask....just which law HAD to be changed?

When Paul read the law and found it was wrong to covet do you not think he told others that it was wrong and told them NO to covet also?

Rom.7
[7] What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Now do you think Paul only read the ONE law out of the books of Moses?

Do you think when he read, 'Do not steal.', he stopped!
Do you think when he read, 'Do not lie., he stopped!
Do you think when he read ALL of the other laws, did he not comply?

And do you tihnk he told others they too had to comply?

Was it any of these laws that needed to be changed?


Just which law was it that was changed?

 

[bud02]

Bud02:

Can you answer the following which have been asked of you before;

Not until you can answer me one question.

Show Rach, and I the scriptural evidence that the book of law was EVER was placed inide the ark "inside the mercy seat, with the 10 commandments"

 

[Rach1370]

Ecc.12:13….I am at this point rolling my eyes at my “itch” to try and steer you and Xander in a less legalistic direction. I am happy to answer your questions, but I know at this point that you will dismiss my answers as wrong. I can reason with you and show you bible verses that clearly contradict your ideas til I’m blue in the face or my typing fingers drop off.

Here is the issue in a nutshell….as long as you pull all your proof and verses from the Old Testament, you are missing the point of the bible….you may as well convert to Judaism. The New Testament is just about that…the New. Jesus, the NEW and perfect Adam, saves us from sin rather than condemns humanity to it. Jesus dies and resurrects bringing a NEW covenant, which gives us NEW life, NEW freedom and a NEW outlook on living for God. As long as you focus on the old, you will never fully grasp the Grace He has offered us in the NEW! Jesus came to fulfil the law, and in fulfilling it, transformed it! “The Law” as you see it is now about Love; loving Jesus and loving others and by these two things we grow towards Christ. The old is important to show us these things: How humans fell and sin entered into the world, that God loves us and that He always intended for His Son to die for us. This is my point…you’re all “the law the law the law!!”, but the law serves to point us to the understanding that we cannot be saved by the law, ONLY Jesus. The whole bible is a story (a true one!!) You cannot just slap it closed on the Old Testament and announce “ahha! That’s it!”. You need the end of the story as well. Read the New Testament verses that everyone has posted here again, read them and pray the Holy Spirit will open your eyes and your heart to what your Lord has PLAINLY written to us. Honestly, it is so clear that I can only conclude one of two things: English is not your native tongue (in which case I urge you to get a bible which is…then it shall be clear!), or secondly, tragically, that your heart is hardened, and by so venomously clinging to the law you are hoping to gain some righteousness accredited to yourself.

Please, please see that it is ONLY through our God, the Trinity in action that we can hope for anything at all, and that once we are His then His love, His sacrifice, His grace; it is all sufficient for us, nothing can tear us away…not even eating pig!

Now, I know you will ignore all of the above and say “but you didn’t answer my questions”, and so I shall, but it would also be nice if you did the same. So many people have posted you again and again with truth from the bible, with clearly rational logic, and yet you yourselves have not addressed them properly. (And by properly I do not mean: “you have misunderstood me”, or your repeating of your questions).

It’s worth noting that you are misreading the Old Testament , which doesn’t say much for your argument over all.


ecc said:
" First let's let God's word prove that His laws were NOT only for the nation of Israel;

Exod. 12
[49] One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.<br style=""> <br style=""> "

That means that visitors in the land of Israel are under the protection of the law. Sojourn means “visit”, nothing else. This is the ONLY interpretation of this verse…anything else is violating the rules of language as well as logic.

ecc said:
"Num.15
[16] One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.
[29] Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.<br style=""> <br style=""> "

Again, this explicitly and repeatedly refers to the visitor in the land of Israel. As soon as they leave, this no longer applies to them. It’s not even about the gentiles, its about the administration of civic law within the Jewish nation state.

ecc said:
"So is your statement correct? Not according to God's word!"

Actually what you have just quoted specifically disproves your point, not mine.

ecc said
"God's laws are for ALL that decide to follow the true and living God! "

No, Jewish law is for all who convert to Judaism, in addition, this is all a civic law matter for the theocracy of Israel, it wouldn’t necessarily even apply to Jews in a modern setting.

ecc said:
"And was it only the nation of Israel that were present when the laws were given? Let's read...

Exod.12
[37] And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.
[38] And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.

So it was NOT only Israel that departed Egypt and traveled. There were Gentiles also."

You are relying on an extremely spurious interpretation of “mixed multitude”. I could be wrong, but usually when there are other nationalities involved they are mentioned by tribe. There are NO mentions of other tribes here, or Egyptians travelling with them, so you have based your entire theory on reading a VERY specific interpretation into an ambiguous word.

ecc said:
"Now do you really think God would punish an Israelite for picking up stones on the Sabbath and NOT do the same for a non-Israelite? Of course not! "

Of course YES! Do you expect to be punished for not having tassels on your cloak? I’m not sure your point above actually makes sense, or even a proper sentence! The Old Testament does not contain any examples of foreigners being punished for not keeping the Sabbath. Correct me if I’m wrong.

ecc said:
God does not have two agendas.

This is the ONLY thing we agree on…well done! And yet, God told Pharaoh to tell his people go, even while hardening his heart against this very command. Just because it sounds like two agendas to you, doesn’t mean its wrong.

ecc said:
"Next.....if you could please answer the questions;


Why is God going to consume 'unbelievers' that eat swine, the mouse and the abomination? If they are 'unbelievers' why is God holding them accountable for what they eat?"

Now, as to my reference to “unbelievers”, this was made with some assumption on my behalf…assumptions that were made before I had realised just how ‘stuck’ in the old testament you were. My mistake. But as Isaiah is so important to you, lets look at it. Quoting isolated sentences verbatim from prophecy’s and prophetic books is not the best way to build rational arguments…especially when you take things out of context. Isaiah 66:3-4 lays out how adherence to the law alone is no value. It specifically says that even though they follow the law they won’t be spared, because “when I spoke they did not listen”(66:4). 66:15-17 speaks of the Final Judgment, the Day of the Lord. As I said before, the New Testament and Jesus (the Lord, in the Day of the Lord) tells us more about this day than anything in the OT. And Jesus says: “You love me, and you will be spared from wrath”. NO WHERE does he say “Love me, don’t eat pig, and you will be spared from wrath”

ecc said:
"And to address Heb.7...can you tell me just which law was changed?

Heb.7
[12] For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

So just which of the over 600 laws was there a NEED to change?



Thou shall not kill?
Thou shall not commit adultry?
Thou shall not covet?
Thou shall not steel?

Or how about this one that is NOT part of the (10) and yet we are STILL to keep it......

Thou shall not have respect of persons?

Again I ask....just which law HAD to be changed?

When Paul read the law and found it was wrong to covet do you not think he told others that it was wrong and told them NO to covet also?"

Your ranting make no logical sense. This is a non-sequitur argument. Read the rest of Hebrews because it specifically nullifies the rest of your points. The entire book is devoted to your questions, if you don’t have answers yet its because your not reading.

ecc said:
"Rom.7
[7] What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."

Non-sequitur argument again. You are confusing moral and cultic law. Once again you have taken a single verse and used it out of context. The entire passage undermines your position, as anyone would know who had read it.

ecc said:
"Now do you think Paul only read the ONE law out of the books of Moses?

Do you think when he read, 'Do not steal.', he stopped!
Do you think when he read, 'Do not lie., he stopped!
Do you think when he read ALL of the other laws, did he not comply?

And do you tihnk he told others they too had to comply?

Was it any of these laws that needed to be changed?


Just which law was it that was changed?"

The whole of the law was transformed. Also, there are many words here but no point. You are accusing others of stopping their reading of the law at an arbitrary point. If this is an error, it is also one that you commit. You seem happy to ignore the laws of clothing, the paraphernalia of the priesthood, almost all of the hygiene laws, the rules for the diagnosis of skin conditions, laws for the suspicion of infidelity. In short, over 600 rules of Leviticus and Duet. You say that only 1 law has changed, but you ignore over 600.

 

[Xanderoc]

The evident is problem that there are to many NT scriptures that contradict your interpretation. And zero NT scriptures that support it, in that case we have to look for the intended meaning of Isa 66-15. Isaiah is speaking to who? and using terms they were familiar with. People he have given no less than a half dozen verses that contradict your your understanding in my book that indicates you are in error.

bud02, what NT scriptures contradict God killing people for eating unclean food? All the scripture provided here are all interpretations by people who refuse to keep God's laws. People who think the OT is just old, and not to be followed.
Here are man's interpreted scriptures provided to contradict God's dietary law.
Matthew 15: [sup]11[/sup]Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. This is the scripture used. But if you read a little bit more you will see this whole conversation was about unwashed hands vs 20 clearly stated that. [sup]15[/sup]Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. [sup]16[/sup]And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
[sup]17[/sup]Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
[sup]18[/sup]But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
[sup]19[/sup]For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
[sup]20[/sup]These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Another scripture used
1 Tim 4:
I put in bold what people use to contradict the dietary law. The underline portion of the scriptures is key! For those that believe and know the truth. The truth is you cannot eat unclean food.
[sup]3[/sup]Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
vs [sup]4[/sup]For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: This does not prove anything against God's dietary law! read vs 5
[sup] 5[/sup]For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. Food is sanctified(set apart) by the word in Leviticus.

Acts 10.. Peters vision is clearly speaking of man being consider unclean. The vision was never about food. Acts 10:17
Acts 10: [sup]17[/sup]Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,
Now if the vision was truly about food, as you and the others that use this scripture have suggested. Why would Peter doubt in himself. Again in vs 19 [sup]19[/sup]While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Peter continued to think of the meaning of the vision, because he knew it wasn't about food. vs 28 sums it all up. vs 28 [sup]28[/sup]And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. God was showing Peter using unclean food, and comparing it to the stranger, who the Jews considered unclean. The vision actually proved that the dietary law was still be kept by the Jews, notice Peter's response. vs 14 [sup]14[/sup]But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
These scriptures are not evidence that contradict what is clearly said in Isaiah 66:16-17
[sup]16[/sup]For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many. [sup]17[/sup]They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD
This scripture is pretty clear cut and dry. There is no need for interpretation. All the scripture provided to contract Isaiah 66, hold no water!!! If you choose not to follow God's law, Hey, that's between you and God. I'm not here to convince anyone. I am just here to give the truth about God's word. I only hope those reading this forum will ask the Lord for discernment, and allow the word to speak for itself, and not rely on man's interpretation of God's word.

 

[Selene]

According to the Apostle Paul:

Romans 14:2-6, 14-15 One person believes that one may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. The one who eats must not despise the one who abstains, and the one who abstains must not pass judgement on the one who eats; for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgement on someone else's servant? For one person considers one day more important than another, while another person considers all days alike. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind. Whoever observes the day, observes it for the Lord. Also whoever eats, eats for the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while whoever abstains, abstains for the Lord and gives thanks to God............I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; still it is unclean for someone who thinks it unclean. If your brother is being hurt by what you eat, your conduct is no longer in accord with love. Do not because of your food destroy him for whom Christ died.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[Xanderoc]

Ecc.12:13….I am at this point rolling my eyes at my “itch” to try and steer you and Xander in a less legalistic direction. I am happy to answer your questions, but I know at this point that you will dismiss my answers as wrong. I can reason with you and show you bible verses that clearly contradict your ideas til I’m blue in the face or my typing fingers drop off.

This needs no reponce.

It’s worth noting that you are misreading the Old Testament , which doesn’t say much for your argument over all.

You a haven't proven anything Rach, using the scriptures which proves ECC or I are misreading the old testament. What you have stated are your opinion not facts according to the book.

ecc said:
" First let's let God's word prove that His laws were NOT only for the nation of Israel;

Exod. 12
[49] One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.<br style=""> <br style=""> "

That means that visitors in the land of Israel are under the protection of the law. Sojourn means “visit”, nothing else. This is the ONLY interpretation of this verse…anything else is violating the rules of language as well as logic.

ecc said:
"Num.15
[16] One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.
[29] Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.<br style=""> <br style=""> "

Exod. 12
[49] One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you
Sojourn does not mean "visit" ?. It is apparent you don't understand the Old English writing of the KJV . So I'll give you the NIV version of the scripture. Exodus 12:[sup]49[/sup] The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you".
Pretty clear.. Sojourn means living among you!!
ecc said:
"Num.15
[16] One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.
[29] Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.<br style=""> <br style=""> "
NIV version
Num.15:
[sup]16[/sup] The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the alien living among you.' "

[sup]29[/sup] One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether he is a native-born Israelite or an alien.
Notice the underline portion. Read and understand. When you actually search for the truth, it can be found.

Exod.12
[37] And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.
[38] And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.

So it was NOT only Israel that departed Egypt and traveled. There were Gentiles also."

You are relying on an extremely spurious interpretation of “mixed multitude”. I could be wrong, but usually when there are other nationalities involved they are mentioned by tribe. There are NO mentions of other tribes here, or Egyptians travelling with them, so you have based your entire theory on reading a VERY specific interpretation into an ambiguous word.

Here is the NIV version of these scriptures, so you can understand.
[sup]37[/sup] The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. [sup]38[/sup] Many other people went up with them, as well as large droves of livestock, both flocks and herds. It's says many other people Rach! Other people, means other than Israel. People who accept the God of Israel, accept His law, statue, and commandments. Just in case you didn't no Jesus is considered king of the Jews. When He returns and sets up His kingdom on earth. Everyone will have to follow His laws, statue, and commandments. This includes His dietary law!!

ecc said:
"So is your statement correct? Not according to God's word!"

Actually what you have just quoted specifically disproves your point, not mine.

ecc said
"God's laws are for ALL that decide to follow the true and living God! "

No, Jewish law is for all who convert to Judaism, in addition, this is all a civic law matter for the theocracy of Israel, it wouldn’t necessarily even apply to Jews in a modern setting.

No, one law is for all. Just because you don't believe in the law of God. Doesn't mean you won't pay for breaking it. Jesus said let the wheat grow with the chaff, and in the harvest they would be separated. You and all who refuse to not follow God's law will pay for it.

Please, please see that it is ONLY through our God, the Trinity in action that we can hope for anything at all, and that once we are His then His love, His sacrifice, His grace; it is all sufficient for us, nothing can tear us away…not even eating pig!

The trinity is a pagan belief. But that is another lesson for another time.
This is just one way to prove you have no understanding of the scriptures.Here is your quote.."Again, this explicitly and repeatedly refers to the visitor in the land of Israel. As soon as they leave, this no longer applies to them. It’s not even about the gentiles, its about the administration of civic law within the Jewish nation state".
This statement is another example of a spirit of error.

 

[Foreigner]

"As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean." - Romans 14:14


-- Seems simple enough, doesn't it?
Or are we now going to say that Paul's divinely inspired words are incorrect?

 

[Xanderoc]

According to the Apostle Paul:

Romans 14:2-6, 14-15 One person believes that one may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. The one who eats must not despise the one who abstains, and the one who abstains must not pass judgement on the one who eats; for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgement on someone else's servant? For one person considers one day more important than another, while another person considers all days alike. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind. Whoever observes the day, observes it for the Lord. Also whoever eats, eats for the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while whoever abstains, abstains for the Lord and gives thanks to God............I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; still it is unclean for someone who thinks it unclean. If your brother is being hurt by what you eat, your conduct is no longer in accord with love. Do not because of your food destroy him for whom Christ died.

In Christ,
Selene

Selene, these scripture do not contradict the dietary law. If you read Leviticus 11, you will see nothing is unclean of itself. It is unclean because Jesus the law giver said they were unclean. He told Noah what animal was unclean ... Read Gen 7:2, He told Moses to write specifically what animal (food) was unclean. Now you expect the reader to believe God changed His mind through Paul's letters. Peter warned about Paul's writing. 1 Peter 3[sup]15[/sup]And count[sup](A)[/sup] the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as[sup](B)[/sup] our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you[sup](C)[/sup] according to the wisdom given him, [sup]16[/sup]as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters.[sup](D)[/sup] There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction,[sup](E)[/sup] as they do the other Scriptures. Don't twist Paul's letters to your own destruction.

"As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean." - Romans 14:14


-- Seems simple enough, doesn't it?
Or are we now going to say that Paul's divinely inspired words are incorrect?

No his word is not incorrect, It is the understanding of his word that's incorrect. Peter's warning for Paul's writing. [sup]15[/sup]And count[sup](A)[/sup] the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as[sup](B)[/sup] our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you[sup](C)[/sup] according to the wisdom given him, [sup]16[/sup]as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters.[sup](D)[/sup] There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction,[sup](E)[/sup] as they do the other Scriptures. Like I told Selene, don't let your understanding of Paul's writing cause you to fall into destruction.

 

[Foreigner]

"Like I told Selene, don't let your understanding of Paul's writing cause you to fall into destruction." - Xander


-- I would respectfully say the same thing to you, Xander.

 

[aspen]

A re-emphasis on dietary law within a religious context has more in common with 19th century religious movements than the Bible or the Jewish dietary restrictions listed in the OT. Mormons, Millerites, JW, Advents, and Christian Scientists are bare witness to this fact.

Peace

 

[Rach1370]

Xander. "The Trinity is a pagan belief".

ARE YOU KIDDING! :blink:

Ok, this explains a lot to me. Quite frankly it is a waste of my time trying to point a Christian brother or sister away from error....when they AREN'T CHRISTIAN.

Ok lets see:

• You REFUSE to actually answer proofs from the New Testament, things that Jesus himself said, things that his disciples and apostles say.
• You accuse everyone else of falsely interpreting the OT, when lets face it, its only your interpretation as well...you have just as much 'proof', or just as little to show your interpretation is the correct one.
• You believe the laws (specifically the dietary one) is MORE important than what Jesus did on the cross
• You believe the Trinity, which is so completely and irreversibly proven within scripture that to deny it is to deny God Himself.

So, yes, I don't believe you are Christian. You may well puff up with rage at that, and you know what? That's ok, it doesn't bother me. As we go through life we will either offend people, or God, and as I love Jesus, that's all that matters. I am concerned for you, and ECC if his views are the same; but my concern is now the same as I have for complete unbelievers. I will pray and hope that the Holy Spirit (part of the Trinity!) will open your eyes and heart, because really, a life lived under the law is not one at all...it is doomed to failure.