How can the following statements by Paul corroborate the doctrine created BY Paul: “Paul’s” doctrine of Grace??

[ZNP]

In Romans 14:1, the topic of the chapter is in regard to disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no commands, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God, so nothing in the chapter should be interpreted as speaking against following God. For example, in Romans 14:2-3, they were judging and resenting each other based on whether or not they chose to eat only vegetables even though God has given no command to do that. Human opinion must yield where God have given a command.

The Greek words "akathartos" and "koinos" both refer to a type of devilment, but the Bible never uses them interchangeable, so while it can be correct to translate them both into English as "unclean", doing that does not retain their distinct meanings and it would be an error to interpret Paul as saying that nothing is "koinos" in itself as if he had instead said that nothing is "akathartos". The Bible uses "akathartos" in the context of unclean animals and uses "koinos" in the context of the opinions or traditions of men.


Paul was speaking about giving up his rights in order to meet people where they were at, not about sinning in order to reach sinners for Christ because that would have completely undermined his Gospel message.

So which is it, are Christians supposed to follow Moses and the dietary restrictions in the Old Testament or are they to follow Jesus who told us to be His witnesses to the four corners of the earth, because you can't do both. It is one or the other.

 

[Soyeong]

According to Kosher law a Jew can't eat food from a kitchen that cooks unclean animals or non kosher food. Simply eating in their home, regardless of what they fed him would have violated the Kosher dietary regulations.

Now extend that to the Lord saying we would take the gospel to all the nations, none of which serve kosher food. How does the gospel go to China or any other country if the evangelists are required to keep these kosher dietary regulations"?

It is possible to eat food that has not been cooked or to eat food with items that have not been used to cook unclean animals or to eat with Gentiles who had ceased eating unclean animals or for Gentiles to eat with Jews in a Jewish home.

So which is it, are Christians supposed to follow Moses and the dietary restrictions in the Old Testament or are they to follow Jesus who told us to be His witnesses to the four corners of the earth, because you can't do both. It is one or the other.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Law of Moses was how his audience knew what sin (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom/Grace, which includes repenting from eating unclean animals, and which Paul also taught based on the Law of Moses (Acts 14:21-22, 20:24-25, 28:23). Jesus also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:2-22), that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6), and to be imitators of Paul as he was of Christ. So both Christ and. Paul taught their followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example. In Matthew 28:16-20, Jesus commissioned his disciples to make disciples of all nations, teaching them everything that he taught. The whole point of a rabbi/disciple relationship is for the rabbi to teach their disciples how to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example, so the Great Commission can't be accomplished by setting aside the Law of Moses.

 

[ZNP]

It is possible to eat food that has not been cooked or to eat food with items that have not been used to cook unclean animals or to eat with Gentiles who had ceased eating unclean animals or for Gentiles to eat with Jews in a Jewish home.


In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Law of Moses was how his audience knew what sin (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom/Grace, which includes repenting from eating unclean animals, and which Paul also taught based on the Law of Moses (Acts 14:21-22, 20:24-25, 28:23). Jesus also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:2-22), that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6), and to be imitators of Paul as he was of Christ. So both Christ and. Paul taught their followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example. In Matthew 28:16-20, Jesus commissioned his disciples to make disciples of all nations, teaching them everything that he taught. The whole point of a rabbi/disciple relationship is for the rabbi to teach their disciples how to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example, so the Great Commission can't be accomplished by setting aside the Law of Moses.

Are you claiming that eating food that is not kosher is a sin? Explain to me how you are any different from a Judaizer that Paul condemned in Galatians and specifically referred to Peter not eating with the Gentile believers.

 

[Soyeong]

Are you claiming that eating food that is not kosher is a sin? Explain to me how you are any different from a Judaizer that Paul condemned in Galatians and specifically referred to Peter not eating with the Gentile believers.

It is by the Law of Moses that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20) and the Law of Moses prohibits eating unclean animals (Deuteronomy 14), so it is therefore a sin to do that. Moreover, in Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the Law of Moses, so it would also be a sin for someone to tell you that it is not a sin to eat unclean animals.

The problem that Pal had with the Judaizers was not that they were teaching Gentiles how to follow what Christ taught but that they were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised (become Jews) in order to become saved/justified, so I am in complete agreement with Paul's opposition to them. The fact that God prohibited eating certain animals does not mean that Jews and Gentiles are not permitted to eat together.

 

[ZNP]

It is by the Law of Moses that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20) and the Law of Moses prohibits eating unclean animals (Deuteronomy 14), so it is therefore a sin to do that. Moreover, in Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the Law of Moses, so it would also be a sin for someone to tell you that it is not a sin to eat unclean animals.

The problem that Pal had with the Judaizers was not that they were teaching Gentiles how to follow what Christ taught but that they were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised (become Jews) in order to become saved/justified, so I am in complete agreement with Paul's opposition to them. The fact that God prohibited eating certain animals does not mean that Jews and Gentiles are not permitted to eat together.

LOL, do you even understand what circumcision is? It is a sign that you are under the Old Covenant that Moses gave. If you are not circumcised in the flesh then you are not obligated to keep the old covenant. It is a contract that you never signed.

Paul didn't say we didn't need to be circumcised, he said the true circumcision is of the heart and that if you have died with Christ when He was crucified, then that is the true circumcision. Dying to yourself to live to Christ is the signature on the contract in the New Testament.

Now if circumcision in the OT was a shadow of the true circumcision revealed in the New Testament surely you can see that the dietary laws were as well. Jesus told Peter that we are not to call things that God has cleansed as unclean. Those unclean animals were a shadow of the nations. You are what you eat. In the OT the Jews were to be separate from the Gentiles, in the New Testament we are to take the gospel to the nations and we don't need to worry about being defiled by them because Jesus has conquered the grave and because the cross of Christ has dealt with sin and the world.

 

[Soyeong]

LOL, do you even understand what circumcision is? It is a sign that you are under the Old Covenant that Moses gave. If you are not circumcised in the flesh then you are not obligated to keep the old covenant. It is a contract that you never signed.

Paul didn't say we didn't need to be circumcised, he said the true circumcision is of the heart and that if you have died with Christ when He was crucified, then that is the true circumcision. Dying to yourself to live to Christ is the signature on the contract in the New Testament.

Now if circumcision in the OT was a shadow of the true circumcision revealed in the New Testament surely you can see that the dietary laws were as well. Jesus told Peter that we are not to call things that God has cleansed as unclean. Those unclean animals were a shadow of the nations. You are what you eat. In the OT the Jews were to be separate from the Gentiles, in the New Testament we are to take the gospel to the nations and we don't need to worry about being defiled by them because Jesus has conquered the grave and because the cross of Christ has dealt with sin and the world.

The issue is that circumcision can be done for a variety of reason other than the ones that God commanded it for. If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason and not just against incorrect reasons, then Galatians 5:2 would mean that Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised and Christ is of no value to roughy 70% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason for why God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Law of Moses by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles correctly obeying what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.

Someone having a circumcised heart only refers to them being a doer of the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 10:12-16) while someone having an uncircumcised heart only refers to them not being a doer of the Law of Moses. In Romans 2:25-29, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Law of Moses and circumcision of the heart is a matter of the Spirit, which is in contrast with Acts 7:51-53, where those who have uncircumcised hearts resist the Spirit and do not obey the Law of Moses.

There is a reality of what God's covenants teach us about the way to embody God's character traits that was true about God before He made those covenants that it is true about God regardless of which covenant someone is under, if any. God's character traits are eternal, so any instructions that God has given for how to know Him through embodying His character traits are eternal and cumulatively valid. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalm 119:142), therefore all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalm 119:160), so if someone has the goal of knowing God through embodying His righteousness then they will consider any instructions that He has given for how to do that to be valid regardless of whether or not they have a covenant obligation to follow them.

In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe in what Jesus spent his ministry teaching and in what he accomplished through the cross is by repenting and becoming zealous for dong good works in obedience to the Law of Moses (Acts 21:20). We can't die to ourselves and live unto Christ instead of following his example of obedience to the Law of Moses.

In regard to Peter's vision, he notably did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean but also added that he had never eaten anything that was common and God notably did not rebuke Peter for referring to what He had made clean as being unclean but only rebuked him for referring to what He had made clean as being common. So Peter correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and correctly knew that the Law of God prohibits eating them, but he incorrectly identified the clean animals as common and incorrectly declined to eat them in disobedience to God's command to kill and eat. Peter interpreted his vision on three different occasions as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles without saying a word about now being able to eat unclean animals, so his vision had nothing to do with a change in their status.

 

[ZNP]

The issue is that circumcision can be done for a variety of reason other than the ones that God commanded it for. If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason and not just against incorrect reasons, then Galatians 5:2 would mean that Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised and Christ is of no value to roughy 70% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason for why God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Law of Moses by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles correctly obeying what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.

Someone having a circumcised heart only refers to them being a doer of the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 10:12-16) while someone having an uncircumcised heart only refers to them not being a doer of the Law of Moses. In Romans 2:25-29, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Law of Moses and circumcision of the heart is a matter of the Spirit, which is in contrast with Acts 7:51-53, where those who have uncircumcised hearts resist the Spirit and do not obey the Law of Moses.

There is a reality of what God's covenants teach us about the way to embody God's character traits that was true about God before He made those covenants that it is true about God regardless of which covenant someone is under, if any. God's character traits are eternal, so any instructions that God has given for how to know Him through embodying His character traits are eternal and cumulatively valid. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalm 119:142), therefore all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalm 119:160), so if someone has the goal of knowing God through embodying His righteousness then they will consider any instructions that He has given for how to do that to be valid regardless of whether or not they have a covenant obligation to follow them.

In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe in what Jesus spent his ministry teaching and in what he accomplished through the cross is by repenting and becoming zealous for dong good works in obedience to the Law of Moses (Acts 21:20). We can't die to ourselves and live unto Christ instead of following his example of obedience to the Law of Moses.

In regard to Peter's vision, he notably did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean but also added that he had never eaten anything that was common and God notably did not rebuke Peter for referring to what He had made clean as being unclean but only rebuked him for referring to what He had made clean as being common. So Peter correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and correctly knew that the Law of God prohibits eating them, but he incorrectly identified the clean animals as common and incorrectly declined to eat them in disobedience to God's command to kill and eat. Peter interpreted his vision on three different occasions as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles without saying a word about now being able to eat unclean animals, so his vision had nothing to do with a change in their status.

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

 

[Soyeong]

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

I don't think that it makes much sense to interpret Galatians as speaking against following Christ's example of obedience to God. In Psalms 119:142, the Law of Moses is truth, Galatians criticizing them for not obeying the truth should not be interpreted as speaking against them obeying the truth. In John 17:17, it says to sanctify them in truth and that God's Word is truth, so again Galatians should not be interpreted as speaking against obeying God's Word.

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

I have notably not taken the position that the way to receive the Spirit is as the result of obeying either the Law of Moses or works of the law, but rather I agree that the way to receive the Spirit is by the hearing of faith. In Romans 3:31 and Galatians 3:10-12, Paul said that our faith upholds the Law of God in contrast with saying that "works of the law" are not of faith, so that phrase does not refer to the Law of God, but rather Paul used it to refer to the position that Gentiles are required to become circumcised in order to become saved/justified.

3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

God has not spoken anything that is not in accordance with walking in the Spirit, but rather God's character traits are the fruits of the Spirit and the Law of Moses is His instructions for how to embody His character traits, which is why the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it (Ezekiel 36:26-27) and why the Spirit has been given to those who obey God (Acts 5:32).

6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

The Gospel that Jesus taught in Matthew 4:15-23 that called for obedience to the Law of Moses was in accordance with Jesus being sent in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-26), which is the Gospel that was made known in advance to Abraham in accordance with the promise (Galatians 3:8), which he spread to those living in Haran in accordance with the promise (Genesis 12:1-5). The promise was made to Abraham and brought about because he walked in God's way in obedience to His law, he taught his children and those of his household to do that in accordance with spreading Gospel that was made known in advance to him, and because they did that in obedience to the Law of Moses (Genesis 18:19, Genesis 26:4-5, Deuteronomy 30:16). In Psalm 119:1-3, the Law of God is how the children of Abraham know how to be blessed by walking in God's way, and in John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doers of the same works as him, so the way that the that the children of Abraham are a light and a blessing to the nations in accordance with inheriting the promise through faith is by turning the nations from their wickedness and by teaching them to do the same works as Abraham by walking in God's way in obedience to His law in accordance with spreading the Gospel. Believing this promise is the way to become righteous.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

According to Deuteronomy 27-30, the way to be blessed is by relying on the Book of the Law and the way to be cursed is by not relying on it, so Galatians 3:10 should not be interpreted as Paul quoting from that passage in order to support a point that is arguing the opposite of that passage. Rather, the fact that cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything in the Book of the Law straightforwardly means that we should continue to do everything in the Book of the Law and that those who rely on works of the law instead thereby come under that curse.

God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalm 19:7), so the way to trust in God is by obediently trusting in His law, it would be contradictory for someone to think that we should trust in God but not in His instructions, and positions God's instructions are not of faith rather than works of the law denies the faithfulness of God. Paul associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 that the righteous shall live by faith with a quote from Leviticus 18:5 that the one who obeys the Law of Moses shall attain life by it, so the righteous who are living by faith are the same as those who are living in obedience to the Law of Moses. In Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is the Law of Moses, and in 1 John 3:4-7, everyone who is a doer of righteous works in obedience to the Law of Moses is righteous, so the righteous living by faith does not refer to a manner of living that is not in obedience to it.

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

God did not give His law as a curse but in order to teach us how to be blessed while lawlessness is the way to be cursed. In Titus 2:14, it doesn't say that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from the Law of Moses but in order to redeem us all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Law of Moses (Acts 21:20).

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

The way that the blessing of Abraham come so the Gentiles is not by Gentiles refusing to follow the instructions that God gave for how to be blessed.

15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.


16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

New covenants do not nullify the promises of covenants that have already been ratified, so all of God's covenants are eternal and cumulatively valid.

 

[ZNP]

God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalm 19:7), so the way to trust in God is by obediently trusting in His law, it would be contradictory for someone to think that we should trust in God but not in His instructions, and positions God's instructions are not of faith rather than works of the law denies the faithfulness of God. Paul associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 that the righteous shall live by faith with a quote from Leviticus 18:5 that the one who obeys the Law of Moses shall attain life by it, so the righteous who are living by faith are the same as those who are living in obedience to the Law of Moses. In Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is the Law of Moses, and in 1 John 3:4-7, everyone who is a doer of righteous works in obedience to the Law of Moses is righteous, so the righteous living by faith does not refer to a manner of living that is not in obedience to it.

OK, in Leviticus, God's law, we are instructed on giving a sin offering, a trespass offering, a burnt offering, a peace offering, etc. Do you follow those regulations? When was the last time you brought a lamb to the priest to sacrifice?

Leviticus 1:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.

3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord.

4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

5 And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

6 And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.

7 And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire:

8 And the priests, Aaron's sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:

9 But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.

10 And if his offering be of the flocks, namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring it a male without blemish.

11 And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar.

12 And he shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat: and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:

13 But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.

 

[Soyeong]

OK, in Leviticus, God's law, we are instructed on giving a sin offering, a trespass offering, a burnt offering, a peace offering, etc. Do you follow those regulations? When was the last time you brought a lamb to the priest to sacrifice?

Leviticus 1:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.

3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord.

4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

5 And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

6 And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.

7 And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire:

8 And the priests, Aaron's sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:

9 But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.

10 And if his offering be of the flocks, namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring it a male without blemish.

11 And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar.

12 And he shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat: and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:

13 But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.

Many of God's laws have conditions under which they should be obeyed and there is no sin in not following a law that does not have its conditions met, such as with there being no sin with Jesus not obeying the laws in regard to having a period or to giving birth. Likewise, the Israelites were given a number of laws that had the condition "when you enter the land..." while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years, so there was no sin in not following those laws. When the Israelites were in exile in Babylon after the destruction of the Temple, then the condition to return to the land was to first return to obedience to the Torah, which contains laws in regard to Temple practice, so when there are laws that don't have their conditions men, then we should nevertheless be faithful to obey the laws that we can obey.A large portion of the Law of Moses was given to govern the conduct of the Levities, which the other Israelites were not permitted to obey. There were things that the High Priest could do that would be a sin for the other Israelites to do and things that the other Israelites could do that would be a sin for the High Priest to do.

So some laws were given to govern the conduct of the King, the High Priest, priests, judges, men, women, children, those who are married, those who are widowed, those who have servants, those who have animals, those who have crops, those who have tzaraat, those who are living in the land of Israel, and those who are strangers living among of them while others were given to everyone. So there can be either legitimate or illegitimate reasons for not following a particular law and legitimately can not follow the laws in regard to Temple practice because there is no Temple and no residing Levitical priesthood.

 

[ZNP]

Many of God's laws have conditions under which they should be obeyed and there is no sin in not following a law that does not have its conditions met, such as with there being no sin with Jesus not obeying the laws in regard to having a period or to giving birth. Likewise, the Israelites were given a number of laws that had the condition "when you enter the land..." while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years, so there was no sin in not following those laws. When the Israelites were in exile in Babylon after the destruction of the Temple, then the condition to return to the land was to first return to obedience to the Torah, which contains laws in regard to Temple practice, so when there are laws that don't have their conditions men, then we should nevertheless be faithful to obey the laws that we can obey.A large portion of the Law of Moses was given to govern the conduct of the Levities, which the other Israelites were not permitted to obey. There were things that the High Priest could do that would be a sin for the other Israelites to do and things that the other Israelites could do that would be a sin for the High Priest to do.

So some laws were given to govern the conduct of the King, the High Priest, priests, judges, men, women, children, those who are married, those who are widowed, those who have servants, those who have animals, those who have crops, those who have tzaraat, those who are living in the land of Israel, and those who are strangers living among of them while others were given to everyone. So there can be either legitimate or illegitimate reasons for not following a particular law and legitimately can not follow the laws in regard to Temple practice because there is no Temple and no residing Levitical priesthood.

LOL, wow so you just make it up as you go along. Why are the "conditions not met"? It is because we have moved from the Old Testament to the New Testament. The pivot point is Jesus' crucifixion as the passover lamb. He is our sin offering, He is our peace offering, He is our burnt offering. If you were to think that you can now offer a lamb for a sin offering that would be an insult to the blood of Jesus. The problem is you don't understand Hebrews. Read that book prayerfully, ask for insight.

The New Covenant is a legal document that was enacted in the blood of Jesus. The Holy Spirit was given to us as a promise of this covenant, just like a man gives an engagement ring to his fiance. We don't receive this promise because we only eat Kosher food or because we got a rabbi to circumcise us. We receive the Holy Spirit by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as our savior.

If you want to eat kosher because you think it is healthy, that is your choice. But if you want to teach Christians that they need to keep these regulations of the Old Covenant, which is not their covenant, then you are a judaizer just like the ones Paul condemned in Galatians and which he called "the concision".

 

[Soyeong]

LOL, wow so you just make it up as you go along. Why are the "conditions not met"? It is because we have moved from the Old Testament to the New Testament. The pivot point is Jesus' crucifixion as the passover lamb. He is our sin offering, He is our peace offering, He is our burnt offering. If you were to think that you can now offer a lamb for a sin offering that would be an insult to the blood of Jesus. The problem is you don't understand Hebrews. Read that book prayerfully, ask for insight.

I said nothing about making it up as I go along. Laws in regard to Temple practice require there to be a Temple in which to practice them. In Acts 18:18, Paul took a vow involving shaving his head, and the only vow in the Bible that involves someone shaving their head is a Nazarite vow, which involves making sin offerings (Numbers 6). In Acts 21:20-24, Paul planned to pay for the offerings of others who were under vow in order to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against obeying the Law of Moses and to show that he continue to live in obedience to it. In Hebrews 8:4 it refers to offerings that we still being made in accordance with the Law of Moses, so offerings did not cease with the death or resurrection of Jesus but only ceased because of th destruction of the Temple. In Ezekiel 40-46, it prophesies about a time when the 3rd Temple will be built and when offerings will resume and there is nothing about this that is an imagined insult to Jesus, but other it is in honor of him.

It is not that I don't understand Hebrews, but rather it is just that I don't think it is correct to interpret a servant of God as speaking against obeying what He has spoken. However, if you think that Hebrews should be interpreted as speaking against obeying what God has commanded, then you should obey God instead of the author of Hebrews.

The New Covenant is a legal document that was enacted in the blood of Jesus. The Holy Spirit was given to us as a promise of this covenant, just like a man gives an engagement ring to his fiance. We don't receive this promise because we only eat Kosher food or because we got a rabbi to circumcise us. We receive the Holy Spirit by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as our savior.

In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the New Covenant involves God taking away our hearts of stone, giving us hearts of flesh, and sending His Spirit to lead us to obey the Mosaic Law. Likewise, in Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting the Mosaic Law isn our minds and writing it our hearts. If someone wants nothing to do with obeying the Mosaic Law, then they want nothing to do with being under the New Covenant. Likewise, Jesus saves us from our sin (Matthew 1:21) and it is by the Mosaic Law that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), so Jesus graciously teaching us to be a doer of the Mosaic Law is intrinsically the way that he is giving us his gift of saving us from not being a doer of it, but if someone wants noting to do with obeying the Mosaic Law, then they want nothing to do with Jesus being their Savior.

If you want to eat kosher because you think it is healthy, that is your choice. But if you want to teach Christians that they need to keep these regulations of the Old Covenant, which is not their covenant, then you are a judaizer just like the ones Paul condemned in Galatians and which he called "the concision".

In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), so the reason why I eat kosher is not because it is healthy but because I believe that God is holy, but if someone refuses to obey God's instructions for how to be holy as He is holy, then they don't believe in a God who is holy. The problem that Paul had with the Judaizers was not that they were teaching Gentiles how to follow Christ's example of obedience to God but that they were wanting to required Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved.

 

[bytheblood]

If you had a Jew as a guest over for dinner, then would you serve them pork? If you had any guest over for dinner who had a food allergy, who was dairy intolerant, or who was on a special diet, then would you not try to accommodate them? I see no justification for assuming that Paul eating with Gentiles means that he was eating unclean animals. The issue that Paul was discussing in 1 Corinthians 10:25-27 was in regard to whether it had been offered to idols, not in regard to whether or not it was an unclean animal.


In 1 Timothy 4:1, Paul described what he was speaking against as being the doctrine of demons, so it is your position that the commands of God are the doctrine of demons?

First of all, I mentioned " kosher " mainly. If what was prepared was not "kosher" it would be the equivalent to eating "unclean ". As I was responding to your post I scrolled up to ZNP'S retort to your post You can't put it any better than those questions.