Dietary Laws?

[disciplemike]

This is left up to the discretion and conscience of each believer. If you feel it is wrong to eat pork, it WOULD be wrong for you to eat it.

It is a matter of individual conscience. There is no "food law" for those in Christ... only for those that still insist on keeping the old law.

This is what happens when we take an epistle, lift a verse out, and use it as doctrine. You can't do that. Well, I guess you can, but it is not right. Romans 14 is primarily about fasting. Some of the Pharisees were teaching that a person should fast on the 3rd day of the week and the 5th day of the week. (a man-made law). (see Luke 18:12).
The thing about epistles - we don't always know the subject.

 

[trofimus]

From some letter that is not recognised as the word of God? No thanks.

So what? What do you mean by "no, thanks"? It is the teaching of the first church. If you listen to your pastor or any man at all, if you read this forum etc and no only Bible, why is there such an ignorance to church teaching that have much more authority than any man today?

If you dont accept the teaching in the ancient christian writings, you should at least KNOW THEM. Why? Because they are much more closer to the original christianity than any american preacher in 21st century.

In that case you would have to say "no thanks" to absolutely everything you hear or read from any christian. Thats ignorance.

 

[disciplemike]

HE took The Law which was against us
This is clearly stated in Galatians. I think you should reread Galatians?

no. why would he remove the law? The law was not the penalty. The wages of sin is death. not the wages of the law is death. Why would we want to remove something that is good, righteous and holy? So we can sin freely? That is not how it works.

 

[disciplemike]

Would you say the written vide and regulations translate to the Law?

Scripture will not contradict scripture and what you are suggesting to Christians is directly against The Spirit at work in Paul as he directed and instructed and corrected and encouraged the newly growing body

In fact Paul would have said if righteousness could have been attained by the Law then Christ died in vain

Scripture will not contradict scripture, when taken in the proper context: See how John says it:
If Christ removed the law, there would be no sin.

No one who abides in him keeps on sinning;
no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
Little children, let no one deceive you.

Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. ((note the contrast of practices righteousness, [obeys the law] vs. practice of sinning [disobeys the law]))
Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning.
The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. ((not destroy His Father's commandments))
No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. (John says there is evidence, based on who is obeying God)
1 John 3:6-10 (ESV2011)

 

[trofimus]

Scripture will not contradict scripture, when taken in the proper context: See how John says it:
If Christ removed the law, there would be no sin.

No one who abides in him keeps on sinning;
no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
Little children, let no one deceive you.

Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. ((note the contrast of practices righteousness, [obeys the law] vs. practice of sinning [disobeys the law]))
Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning.
The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. ((not destroy His Father's commandments))
No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. (John says there is evidence, based on who is obeying God)
1 John 3:6-10 (ESV2011)

Church has solved this problem of Jewish Law in the first centuries. Why are you trying to take us back and open this topic again? Do you want to tell us, that apostolic and post-apostolic church got it wrong?

 

[disciplemike]

Church has solved this problem of Jewish Law in the first centuries. Why are you trying to take us back and open this topic again? Do you want to tell us, that apostolic and post-apostolic church got it wrong?

You can throw out all the Jewish laws you want. Just don't throw out God's law.
I am saying, it is the weapon of choice for our Adversary, to trick, deceive, lie, do whatever he can to cause us to not obey God. It started in the Garden of Eden, when the serpent whispered, "did God really say that".

 

[HS]

This is what happens when we take an epistle, lift a verse out, and use it as doctrine. You can't do that. Well, I guess you can, but it is not right. Romans 14 is primarily about fasting. Some of the Pharisees were teaching that a person should fast on the 3rd day of the week and the 5th day of the week. (a man-made law). (see Luke 18:12).
The thing about epistles - we don't always know the subject.

Where is Romans 14 primarily talking about fasting? It mainly says we should not fuss about what we eat and drink or about when the Sabbath is kept.

 

[disciplemike]

Where is Romans 14 primarily talking about fasting? It mainly says we should not fuss about what we eat and drink or about when the Sabbath is kept.

Paul would not write a letter saying that the 4th commandment is void. You have to know the subject of the letter. Listen to what Paul says here, listen close:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV2011)

Keep in mind when Paul wrote this to Timothy, the New Testament was not even written yet. Do you think Paul is contradicting himself? I say no.

 

[HS]

Paul would not write a letter saying that the 4th commandment is void. You have to know the subject of the letter. Listen to what Paul says here, listen close:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV2011)

Keep in mind when Paul wrote this to Timothy, the New Testament was not even written yet. Do you think Paul is contradicting himself? I say no.

No he shouldn't contradict himself. I do agree with what he said in 1 Timothy but in Romans 14 we are to eat and drink what the other believer is comfortable with not to argue about it as this may possibly break the others faith. Still don't think It is a reference to fasting. Would you eat pork at another believer's place if it was dished up

 

[disciplemike]

No he shouldn't contradict himself. I do agree with what he said in 1 Timothy but in Romans 14 we are to eat and drink what the other believer is comfortable with not to argue about it as this may possibly break the others faith. Still don't think It is a reference to fasting. Would you eat pork at another believer's place if it was dished up

no pork for me. I don't care if the pope dishes it up. Paul is not double-minded. Paul never taught against God's law. Paul made it clear that the keeping of the law was not for salvation, but it is still the way God's people demonstrate obedience.

 

[HS]

Have you read Romans 14 literally? By the sounds of it you would cause many to stumble.

 

[disciplemike]

Have you read Romans 14 literally? By the sounds of it you would cause many to stumble.

don't build your doctrine from an epistle where you do not know the circumstances.

 

[TonyJay]

don't build your doctrine from an epistle where you do not know the circumstances.

Frankly this is infantile.
I suppose you are the only one in the world who can understand and interpret Romans then!
Puleeezzz!!!

 

[HS]

It isn't my doctrine. I am just taking what Paul says literally. I don't mind if you don't want to eat pork I respect your view on that and if you ate in my house I wouldn't dish it up. I would call Christ Yeshua for you too. It isn't going to ruin my faith.

 

[miknik5]

no pork for me. I don't care if the pope dishes it up. Paul is not double-minded. Paul never taught against God's law. Paul made it clear that the keeping of the law was not for salvation, but it is still the way God's people demonstrate obedience.

Paul isn't double minded sir
he knew that whatever God has made clean is clean

 

[miknik5]

This is what happens when we take an epistle, lift a verse out, and use it as doctrine. You can't do that. Well, I guess you can, but it is not right. Romans 14 is primarily about fasting. Some of the Pharisees were teaching that a person should fast on the 3rd day of the week and the 5th day of the week. (a man-made law). (see Luke 18:12).
The thing about epistles - we don't always know the subject.

Romans we know the subject. Just as we know the subject of every epistle Paul wrote. Every reason Pail had to write a letter to give baby believing churches was to teach correct encourage and to dispute those who had slipped in who were teaching falsehoods

The letter to the Romans was about believers lording it over their unbelieving neighbors

However in chapter 14 Paul is talking to the "strong Christian" telling him not to judge his "weaker brother" for whom Christ had died

He begins this very chapter contradicting everything that you are suggesting here in this thread

 

[miknik5]

Read Romans 14 and 15 together

 

[miknik5]

And another thing. IF it is known that the food to be eaten was offered to false idols and part of ANY Pagan ritual it is NOT to be eaten. This was also instructed (in a separate chapter) (not because there even is such a thing as another God but because those who know this type of meat to have been sacrificed to an idol will be confused by their supposedly stronger brother eating while knowing that this food was used in such a manner
The "older supposedly stronger brother" is doing it for the sake of conscience of his weaker brother


Romans 14 reminds us not to judge
i also suggest that you read Ezekiel 34 understanding that The one and only Shepherd will judge between His fattened filled and fed sheep and His baby lambs. And putting unnecessary obstacles/muddying the waters before babies is not good

 

[Ahwatukee]

Hello all,

The bottom line on this is that, if anyone wants to abstain from eating certain foods they are free in Christ to do so. Likewise, those whose conscience allows them to eat anything and everything are also free in Christ to do so. It is when people teach the works of the law as a requirement for salvation that it becomes a problem and that because they are attempting to find favor with God by their own efforts. For scripture makes if clear that all food is clean of itself and nothing to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving. It is those who believe and teach the works of the law as a requirement for salvation who will not enter into the kingdom of God.

 

[gotime]

It seems there is some study to be done on the new and Old Covenant.

Yes there are two.

Yes one is done away with.

To this extent most are right, its how they then conclude that is often erroneous.

For example. The New Covenant says:

Rom_13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

and the Old Covenant said:

Lev_19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.



Notice they are the same, Love your neighbour.

The error people make is this, They think the new covenant reinstated this, but that is not true it never changed. The covenant changed from old to new, but the law to love our neighbour remained through both.

Jesus did not die to change love your neighbour so the teaching remained as it has always been true that God expects us to love our neighbour. As He did before the law was given through Moses.

See the new testament is simply a quote the Old is where it is quoted from and is the first witness. It is From the Old testament that this quote to love your neighbour gets its authority as it is written:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Of course when this was written there was not new testament and thus it is in fact the Old Testament with the Old Covenant that is profitable for doctrine for reproof etc.

Jesus and the disciples taught from the Old Covenant.

In fact it is the Old covenant that teaches that circumcision is of the heart:

Deu_10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Deu_30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Jer_4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.

This is how they came to the conclusion that it was no longer important as Deut 30 shows this would apply after they were brought back from captivity. and in connection with the new covenant.

You can prove from the old testament the end of sacrifices and the temple service on earth.

In fact you can just about preach every teaching found in the new testament without using the new testament but the Old.

One does not replace the other. One testifies to the validity of the Other. The new testament proves the first and validates its prophetic utterances. that is why Jesus said, "it is written" "have you not read" "you are in error not knowing the scriptures" "what is written in the law", and of course the fact that he often quotes the Old Testament in His teachings. Gets his parables from the Old Testament. and Knew his mission form the Old Testament.

Blessings.