What are God's laws now for?

[Duckybill]

Hopefully nothing, that is, if you follow Christ's commandments.

I assure you that I don't believe the "once saved always saved" doctrine. As far as doing anything I want to, I must assume that you don't read many of my posts. Those who live in sin are in deep trouble with God, 'Christians' or not.

Pulling that one verse apart from the 1 Timothy 4:3 verse is often done to try and make the Scripture justify us eating anything we want. Paul was specific as to which meats he was talking about with meats that God created to be received. That means strike out those meats God did NOT create to be received, for Paul was not including those in his discussion.

I think you have it backwards. It's up to you to prove that Christians are bound to obey all of the Law of Moses.

Paul's Message there is indeed about those today who want us to deny the eating of meats. Yet it is not about eating just any meat, for Paul was specific of which meats he was talking about. I'm not going to judge anyone for what they eat, but I won't deny how God created certain things for our body that are healthy for us either. Each believer must decide for theirself what they will do regarding this matter.

If you know of NT dietary restrictions then please tell us. I don't know of any.

 

[veteran]

I assure you that I don't believe the "once saved always saved" doctrine. As far as doing anything I want to, I must assume that you don't read many of my posts. Those who live in sin are in deep trouble with God, 'Christians' or not.

I think you have it backwards. It's up to you to prove that Christians are bound to obey all of the Law of Moses.

If you know of NT dietary restrictions then please tell us. I don't know of any.

I didn't think you believed that OSAS doctrine of men.

Where in the world did I ever say we Christians are bound to obey all the law of Moses? Now it would seem, you haven't really been reading my posts.

Well, I did show you dietary recommendations Paul mentioned with meats which God created to be received in the 1 Timothy 4:3 verse. If you want to know what they are, then you might check out Deut.14 for an example of that list.


But for others here that might want to know...

Meats of animals that God created for us to receive involve animals that mainly eat grains of the earth. Their digestive system is designed to process grains. But other animals like scavengers, God created to help cleanse the earth. Scavengers are designed to process just about anything. One of main reasons behind the 'mad cow disease' is how livestock were being fed grain mixed with animal meat products. Livestock like cows aren't designed to eat other animals, but to eat grains.

What if we get caught in a desert place without proper food? Eat to survive. If we've got to eat an alligator or snake or lizard to survive that, so bet it. But it doesn't mean we'll want to live on those things once we get back to civilization. Likewise with Paul's example in 1 Cor.10, if we get invited to a feast by unbelievers, and propose to attend, then eat what is put before us, asking no questions. If what's presented is off of God's health list, how will it affect our body if we make that a food staple? Well, it depends on whether one wants their body to remain healthy or not.

 

[Duckybill]

I didn't think you believed that OSAS doctrine of men.

Where in the world did I ever say we Christians are bound to obey all the law of Moses? Now it would seem, you haven't really been reading my posts.

Well, I did show you dietary recommendations Paul mentioned with meats which God created to be received in the 1 Timothy 4:3 verse. If you want to know what they are, then you might check out Deut.14 for an example of that list.


But for others here that might want to know...

Meats of animals that God created for us to receive involve animals that mainly eat grains of the earth. Their digestive system is designed to process grains. But other animals like scavengers, God created to help cleanse the earth. Scavengers are designed to process just about anything. One of main reasons behind the 'mad cow disease' is how livestock were being fed grain mixed with animal meat products. Livestock like cows aren't designed to eat other animals, but to eat grains.

What if we get caught in a desert place without proper food? Eat to survive. If we've got to eat an alligator or snake or lizard to survive that, so bet it. But it doesn't mean we'll want to live on those things once we get back to civilization. Likewise with Paul's example in 1 Cor.10, if we get invited to a feast by unbelievers, and propose to attend, then eat what is put before us, asking no questions. If what's presented is off of God's health list, how will it affect our body if we make that a food staple? Well, it depends on whether one wants their body to remain healthy or not.

So you're not saying that we are bound to the dietary restrictions from the Law of Moses? No problem then.

 

[goodshepard55]

1 Tim:4:

1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.
3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
6 If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed.

The Word is the Truth...The Word is the only Truth

 

[Groundzero]

God's dietary law does still apply, we just don't always apply it. It's that we have the freedom to use it based on the situation like Paul taught.

1 Cor 10:25-28
25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
28 But if any man say unto you, "This is offered in sacrifice unto idols", eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
(KJV)


It's important to understand that God's dietary laws align with the way He created our flesh bodies to work. I was raised on country ham, sausage and biscuits and gravy for breakfast, but eating too much of it will cause health problems to our body. Because we as Christians have permission to eat outside God's clean list of foods in cases like Paul showed above, that doesn't mean its effect on our bodies no longer happens. Lot of older Christian brethren usually find that out after it's too late.

When I speak of "God's laws" about this I'm basically speaking of laws that He placed into effect for all His creation. Those laws are like natural law of how He set bounds for His creation to operate. We cannot upset those laws, for they are a firm part of His natural creation of this earth. God's health laws are aligned with true science, not moral issues.

True. I wasn't saying that the dietary laws were for moral reasons. I realise that they were for health reasons that only now we are uncovering! There were other laws though which did have to do with keeping the people morally healthy. The death penalty was one of these measures that enforced the laws in place. Now that I'm back in this subject, some of the laws, such as the priest's ceremony were more of a shadow of things to come and such.

 

[Duckybill]

Can someone please explain where in the Bible the dietary commands from the Law of Moses were for health reasons? I fail to see this.

 

[Groundzero]

Can someone please explain where in the Bible the dietary commands from the Law of Moses were for health reasons? I fail to see this.

Most the birds mentioned are predatory birds which eat carrion. They can have parasites, worms, and such. Not only that, but they often have a build up of toxic material inside them. Of course, back then probably wasn't as bad now! The best example I can think of is fish. The Israelites were commanded not to eat anything from the sea without scales. Eels, puffer fish, to name a few, are very toxic (some eels). In the case of pigs, they may have worms inside them which could be dangerous, not to mention, pigs in general contaminate things, therefore increasing the risk of disease.

 

[Duckybill]

Most the birds mentioned are predatory birds which eat carrion. They can have parasites, worms, and such. Not only that, but they often have a build up of toxic material inside them. Of course, back then probably wasn't as bad now! The best example I can think of is fish. The Israelites were commanded not to eat anything from the sea without scales. Eels, puffer fish, to name a few, are very toxic (some eels). In the case of pigs, they may have worms inside them which could be dangerous, not to mention, pigs in general contaminate things, therefore increasing the risk of disease.

Thanks but I was asking for Scripture to confirm this.

 

[lawrance]

1 Tim:4:

1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.
3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
6 If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed.

The Word is the Truth...The Word is the only Truth

1 With this abandonment the people of Christ have not lifted a finger to stop our governments from pushing through devilish works.
2 yes.
3 They blaspheme the name of marriage.
4 yes.
5 yes.
6 yes.
It is said that God will turn from us but it's us that turn first. and then the big problems will start.

Who is it behind the push in the USA to stop things to do with Christianity in your schools. does anyone know who they are, and how they pushed this through the law.

We have a straight out anti Christian running Australia now and it just lies constantly and it's a dictator pushing all it's own hog wash through and it's not even married has no children and has not come out of the closet yet and it's coalition leader is a full on poofter. and our country is going straight down the drain and we are swamped with 3 rd world people who are treated far better then our own people are.

 

[Rach1370]

We have a straight out anti Christian running Australia now and it just lies constantly and it's a dictator pushing all it's own hog wash through and it's not even married has no children and has not come out of the closet yet and it's coalition leader is a full on poofter. and our country is going straight down the drain and we are swamped with 3 rd world people who are treated far better then our own people are.

Ah, Julia...every time she speaks of the 'morals' of her party I want to puke!!
But as for the "coalition poofter"...I thought it was Bob Brown who was gay, not Abbott.

 

[Groundzero]

1 With this abandonment the people of Christ have not lifted a finger to stop our governments from pushing through devilish works.
2 yes.
3 They blaspheme the name of marriage.
4 yes.
5 yes.
6 yes.
It is said that God will turn from us but it's us that turn first. and then the big problems will start.

Who is it behind the push in the USA to stop things to do with Christianity in your schools. does anyone know who they are, and how they pushed this through the law.

We have a straight out anti Christian running Australia now and it just lies constantly and it's a dictator pushing all it's own hog wash through and it's not even married has no children and has not come out of the closet yet and it's coalition leader is a full on poofter. and our country is going straight down the drain and we are swamped with 3 rd world people who are treated far better then our own people are.

Hey! Let's hear it! Another Aussie! lol. You obviously understand a little about Aussie politics. I wouldn't rip of Tony Abbot too much. He does try hard and he certainly is not an amoral person like Gillard. You can't believe everything the media says. Most of it is one-sided.

 

[veteran]

Hey! Let's hear it! Another Aussie! lol. You obviously understand a little about Aussie politics. I wouldn't rip of Tony Abbot too much. He does try hard and he certainly is not an amoral person like Gillard. You can't believe everything the media says. Most of it is one-sided.

Excuse my lack of knowledge about Aussie slang, but what's a 'poofer'?

Thanks but I was asking for Scripture to confirm this.

You must still be pretty young then. Wait till you get older when your body starts rebelling against the things you put in it, including some healthy foods even.

 

[Groundzero]

Thanks but I was asking for Scripture to confirm this.

At the end of the dietary laws in leviticus, God said that he wanted a distinction between clean and unclean, and that they were to be holy even as he was holy.

Lev 11:45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.
Lev 11:46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
Lev 11:47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.


Later on, this is what God said to Peter:

Act 10:11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Act 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
Act 10:16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.


As to health reasons, there isn't anything actually stated. I firmly believe that every law that was given had the good of man in mind, not some pointless law with no use other than to hinder and test the people.

Excuse my lack of knowledge about Aussie slang, but what's a 'poofer'?

It means a homosexual.

Ah, Julia...every time she speaks of the 'morals' of her party I want to puke!!
But as for the "coalition poofter"...I thought it was Bob Brown who was gay, not Abbott.

You're correct. Abbot is against it. Of course, that doesn't really matter to those who don't like him. If you type in Greens Party Homosexual into google, you will quickly find out just who supports it. P.S. it's rather shocking how blatant they are about it. The only thing I can see that is wrong with Abbot, is that he has the tendency to spend too much time tearing the opposition down.

 

[Duckybill]

As to health reasons, there isn't anything actually stated. I firmly believe that every law that was given had the good of man in mind, not some pointless law with no use other than to hinder and test the people.

And that is my point. It is man made doctrine. No clearcut Scripture to back it. And since the dietary commands are only in the Law of Moses it is not a Christian doctrine.

 

[Groundzero]

And that is my point. It is man made doctrine. No clearcut Scripture to back it. And since the dietary commands are only in the Law of Moses it is not a Christian doctrine.

I wouldn't call it man-made. God put the dietary commands for the Israelites good. Something we must remember is that we live in a different dispensation to the Law. I don't have time atm to explain as I have to go to bed. I will quickly say, however, that there are a few basic doctrines that the Scriptures teach that Christians should adhere to. Other than that, we have alot more freedom than what the Jews had, because the Messiah has come and all those types and shadows from the days of Moses have been fulfilled.

 

[Rach1370]

You're correct. Abbot is against it. Of course, that doesn't really matter to those who don't like him. If you type in Greens Party Homosexual into google, you will quickly find out just who supports it. P.S. it's rather shocking how blatant they are about it. The only thing I can see that is wrong with Abbot, is that he has the tendency to spend too much time tearing the opposition down.

Politicians. Wish the world could spin without them! I can't really be too hard on Abbot for 'tearing' the opposition down...he's just handed so very much to work with!!
I don't really go for politics so much, but when the leader of Australia is someone who has the morals of an alley cat, it really makes you think that something should be done!

 

[veteran]

Later on, this is what God said to Peter: Act 10:11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. Act 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. Act 10:16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. As to health reasons, there isn't anything actually stated. I firmly believe that every law that was given had the good of man in mind, not some pointless law with no use other than to hinder and test the people.

Can't use that Acts 10 example of what God showed Peter to try and justify God's unclean list of meats is now OK. Here's why...


Acts 10:16-17
16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
17 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 inquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,
(KJV)

Acts 10:28
28 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.
(KJV)

Peter declared his vision of the blanket of animals to the believing Jews in Acts 11 also, revealing that he understood God's Message was about Gentiles, not that unclean meats were made OK to eat.

 

[Groundzero]

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 inquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,[/b]
(KJV)

Acts 10:28
28 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.
(KJV)

Peter declared his vision of the blanket of animals to the believing Jews in Acts 11 also, revealing that he understood God's Message was about Gentiles, not that unclean meats were made OK to eat.
[/size][/font]
[/size]

Just thought of these Scriptures:

1Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.



1Co 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
1Co 6:13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

 

[tim_from_pa]

What relationship do God's laws have under the New Covenant?

The same as the Old Covenant. They are God's standard of righteousness. The Law has not been done away with, but rather the curse of the Law.

The covenants are not based on what the Law says, per se, but one's relationship with God judging by those standards.

In the Old Covenant, the idea was "Do this and you shall live". Of course nobody could and everyone died (and thus the Law was that schoolmaster to show our fallen nature)

In the New Covenant, it's "Christ became a curse for us" and died, but Christ had the righteousness of God. Christ could do it, and thus he lived. That's why he rose again. We thus die to our old nature and put on Christ.

So, the Old v.s. the New is not about the standards, which have not changed one jot or tittle. The Old v.s. the New asks the question "Whose righteousness? Yours or Christ's?"

To extrapolate a tad, but not get into excessive detail, I believe the Law had a moral and ceremonial aspect to it. I am talking about the moral law being in effect. The ceremonial was "play acting" so-to-speak to prophecy the reality in Christ and his atoning work. It was a physical object lesson and testimony for the future. It did not have a sin or moral aspect to it other than one had to keep that until Christ fulfilled them. But the moral "thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery", etc is still valid.

 

[RichardBurger]

The same as the Old Covenant. They are God's standard of righteousness. The Law has not been done away with, but rather the curse of the Law.

The covenants are not based on what the Law says, per se, but one's relationship with God judging by those standards.

In the Old Covenant, the idea was "Do this and you shall live". Of course nobody could and everyone died (and thus the Law was that schoolmaster to show our fallen nature)

In the New Covenant, it's "Christ became a curse for us" and died, but Christ had the righteousness of God. Christ could do it, and thus he lived. That's why he rose again. We thus die to our old nature and put on Christ.

So, the Old v.s. the New is not about the standards, which have not changed one jot or tittle. The Old v.s. the New asks the question "Whose righteousness? Yours or Christ's?"

To extrapolate a tad, but not get into excessive detail, I believe the Law had a moral and ceremonial aspect to it. I am talking about the moral law being in effect. The ceremonial was "play acting" so-to-speak to prophecy the reality in Christ and his atoning work. It was a physical object lesson and testimony for the future. It did not have a sin or moral aspect to it other than one had to keep that until Christ fulfilled them. But the moral "thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery", etc is still valid.

Well, as I see it, words can kill, and in this world today, which worships the beauty of men and women, most commit adultry in their minds.

But what I see in Paul's writtings, is that we are dead to the Law and it can no longer condemn us, none of it. The only thing that condemns today is to not believe God, to not believe the shed blood of Jesus Christ paid for all our sins, past, present, and future.