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

[FlyingDove]

Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God's character traits, so everything in the Torah is inherently a moral command. God's character traits are eternal, so any interactions that God has given for how to embody His character traits are eternally valid.


Sin was in the world before the Torah was given because people were able to act a way that is contrary to God's character traits before they had been given instructions to refrain from doing that. Moreover, the fact that sin was in the world before the Torah was given mean that there were no actions that became righteous or sinful when it was given, but rather it revealed what has always been and will always be the way to do that.

In Ephesians 2:12-19, Gentiles were at one time separated from Christ, alienated from Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in this world, all of which is in accordance with Gentiles at one time not being doers of the Torah, but through faith in Christ all of that is no longer true in that Gentiles are no longer strangers or aliens but are fellow citizens of Israel along with the saints in the household of God, all of which is in accordance with Gentiles becoming doers of the Torah.

In Romans 2:13-15, Paul said that only the doers of the Torah will be justified and that Gentiles will by nature be doers of the Torah.

In Jeremiah 31:33 the New Covenant still involves following the Torah.

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 Torah was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message, which is the Gospel that Peter argued in Acts 15:6-7 that Gentiles had heard and believed, so he was a agreeing with the Pharisees among the believers that Gentiles should obey the Torah (Acts 15:5). In Ezekiel 36:26-27, God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead us in obedience to the Torah, which is in accordance with Acts 15:8-9 where Peter argued that the Gentiles had received the Spirit and had their hearts cleansed, so again he was agreeing that Gentiles should obey the Torah. In Psalm 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Torah, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith, which is in accordance with Acts 15:10-11 where Peter argued that Gentiles are saved by grace just as we are, so again he was agreeing that Gentiles should obey the Torah. No one there was opposed to Gentiles following Christ's example of obedience to the Torah, but rather the topic they were discussion was whether salvation is by grace (Acts 15:11) or by circumcision (Acts 15:1).


Christ said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:15). Christ also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Torah and we are told to follow is example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6). So Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Torah by word and by example and I see no justification for thinking that the Law of Christ is something contrary to anything that Christ taught or anything that has come from the mouth of God.


Everything in the Torah is either in regard to how to love God or how to love our neighbor, which is why Jesus said in Matthew 22:36-40 that those are the greatest two commandments and that all of the other commandments hang on them, so the Torah is LOVE. For example, if we love God and our neighbor, then we won't commit idolatry, adultery, murder, theft, bear false witness, or covet, but we also won't commit favoritism, rape, kidnapping, and so forth for the rest of the Torah. In Deuteronomy 6:4-7, the way to obey the greatest commandment in the Bible is essentially by being zealous for teaching the Torah. The way to love God is by embodying His character traits, so the way to love justice is by being a doer of justice, the way to love holiness is by being a doer of His instructions for how to be holy as He is holy, and so forth. In other words, the goal of everything in the Torah is to teach us how to love different aspects of God's character traits, which are the basis for morality, and which is why the Bible repeatedly states in both the OT and the NT that the way to love God is by obeying His commandments.

You're wall of text collapsing categories the Bible refuses to merge: God's eternal moral righteousness is not the Sinai covenant & Torah is not the New Covenant law of Christ.

Paul says the Law was added until the Seed came (Gal 3:19), has been abolished as a covenant (Eph 2:15) & is a fading ministry (2 Cor 3:7–11). While also saying sin existed long before Moses (Rom 5:13–14) & that Gentiles were never under Torah (Rom 2:14; Eph 2:12; Acts 15).

Peter's entire point in Acts 15 is that God purified Gentile hearts by faith without Torah & that placing them under the Sinai code is a YOKE Israel itself couldn't bear (Acts 15:9–10).

Jeremiah says the New Covenant is not like the Sinai covenant (Jer 31:32) & Paul is explicit that believers are under Christ's law, not Moses' (1 Cor 9:21 & Gal 6:2). Your system only works if you erase every distinction the apostles build their theology on.

 

[bytheblood]

In all these discussions where is the Holy Spirit? Someone said that James and Paul made a mistake in scripture. Were they the authors or was the Holy Spirit? Didn't Paul eat with Gentiles? Didn't he say that all food, prayed over, was good? How is that in keeping with the law? Paul said himself that " To the weak became I weak, that I might gain the weak: I am MADE ALL THINGS to ALL MEN, that I might BY ALL MEANS SAVE SOME. And this I do FOR THE GOSPELS SAKE, that I might be partaker thereof with you." 1 Cor. 9-22-23. So shaving his head was not so much to keep the law, but in his efforts to win some to Christ. Paul was almost like a chameleon in that he was adaptable, when in Rome do as the Romans do ( of course not in a sinful aspect ), but to fit in and not seem, as highly possible before conversion, " better than." Yes, Paul still worshipped on Saturday but also on Sunday with the Gentile Christians. He also wrote " Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an HOLYDAY, or of the new moon, OR OF THE SABBATH days." Coll. 2-16

 

[bytheblood]

In all these discussions where is the Holy Spirit? Someone said that James and Paul made a mistake in scripture. Were they the authors or was the Holy Spirit? Didn't Paul eat with Gentiles? Didn't he say that all food, prayed over, was good? How is that in keeping with the law? Paul said himself that " To the weak became I weak, that I might gain the weak: I am MADE ALL THINGS to ALL MEN, that I might BY ALL MEANS SAVE SOME. And this I do FOR THE GOSPELS SAKE, that I might be partaker thereof with you." 1 Cor. 9-22-23. So shaving his head was not so much to keep the law, but in his efforts to win some to Christ. Paul was almost like a chameleon in that he was adaptable, when in Rome do as the Romans do ( of course not in a sinful aspect ), but to fit in and not seem, as highly possible before conversion, " better than." Yes, Paul still worshipped on Saturday but also on Sunday with the Gentile Christians. He also wrote " Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an HOLYDAY, or of the new moon, OR OF THE SABBATH days." Coll. 2-16

I didn't see Undergrace 1's reply until I had posted this. Not copying.

 

[Soyeong]

In all these discussions where is the Holy Spirit? Someone said that James and Paul made a mistake in scripture. Were they the authors or was the Holy Spirit? Didn't Paul eat with Gentiles? Didn't he say that all food, prayed over, was good? How is that in keeping with the law? Paul said himself that " To the weak became I weak, that I might gain the weak: I am MADE ALL THINGS to ALL MEN, that I might BY ALL MEANS SAVE SOME. And this I do FOR THE GOSPELS SAKE, that I might be partaker thereof with you." 1 Cor. 9-22-23. So shaving his head was not so much to keep the law, but in his efforts to win some to Christ. Paul was almost like a chameleon in that he was adaptable, when in Rome do as the Romans do ( of course not in a sinful aspect ), but to fit in and not seem, as highly possible before conversion, " better than." Yes, Paul still worshipped on Saturday but also on Sunday with the Gentile Christians. He also wrote " Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an HOLYDAY, or of the new moon, OR OF THE SABBATH days." Coll. 2-16

Colossians 2:16 by itself leaves room for two scenarios:

1.) The Colossians were not celebrating God's feasts, they were being judged by Jews because they were not, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone judging not celebrating them.

2.) The Colossians were celebrating God's feasts, they were being judged by pagans because they were, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone judge them for celebrating them.

In Colossians 2:16-23, Paul described the people who were judging the Colossians as promoting human precepts and tradition, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, which means that they were being judged by pagans and that the second scenario was the case. Those promoting asceticism and severity to the body would have been judging people for celebrating feasts, not for refraining from celebrating them.

In 1 Timothy 4:1-5, Paul described what he was speaking against as being the doctrine of demons, so that should be a major clue that he was not speaking against the holy, righteous, and good commandments of God. In Psalm 119:142, the Law of God is truth, so those who know and believe the truth know that unclean animals have not been sanctified by the Word of God, that unclean animals therefore do not meet the condition under which nothing is to be rejected, and that we should not receive with thanksgiving that which God said is an abomination. With respect to Colossians 2:16-23, Paul interacted with pagans who were speaking against eating clean animals that have been sanctified by the Word of God that were created to be received with thanksgiving.

 

[ZNP]

In all these discussions where is the Holy Spirit? Someone said that James and Paul made a mistake in scripture. Were they the authors or was the Holy Spirit? Didn't Paul eat with Gentiles? Didn't he say that all food, prayed over, was good? How is that in keeping with the law? Paul said himself that " To the weak became I weak, that I might gain the weak: I am MADE ALL THINGS to ALL MEN, that I might BY ALL MEANS SAVE SOME. And this I do FOR THE GOSPELS SAKE, that I might be partaker thereof with you." 1 Cor. 9-22-23. So shaving his head was not so much to keep the law, but in his efforts to win some to Christ. Paul was almost like a chameleon in that he was adaptable, when in Rome do as the Romans do ( of course not in a sinful aspect ), but to fit in and not seem, as highly possible before conversion, " better than." Yes, Paul still worshipped on Saturday but also on Sunday with the Gentile Christians. He also wrote " Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an HOLYDAY, or of the new moon, OR OF THE SABBATH days." Coll. 2-16

God did not intervene when Paul shaved his head. He intervened at the end of the vow when they were going to sacrifice a bull, paid for by Paul. Read Hebrews, it is absolutely crystal clear that sacrificing a bull after Jesus had been sacrificed for us was an insult to God and to the Lord. This is why I think that both Paul and James were involved in writing Hebrews, it was the revelation that the church did not have at the time but now has.

The idea that since James and Paul wrote books of the Bible that therefore their own actions in their life had to be infallible is not just completely absurd but debunked by Paul who said he was less than the least of the apostles because of his sins and failings. If we are to believe this ridiculous doctrine that the apostles could do no wrong, then that means Peter did no wrong when he denied the Lord. And in Galatians Paul calls this group of Judaizers the "concision" and says they apparently came from James. One way or another, the record is clear, James was commending all those who "were zealous for the law" and that alone gave the Judaizers cover.

Peter repented of his denial and that was the basis of his ministry, Paul repented of his sins and that was the basis of his ministry and the principle would be the same for James.

 

[ZNP]

Colossians 2:16 by itself leaves room for two scenarios:

1.) The Colossians were not celebrating God's feasts, they were being judged by Jews because they were not, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone judging not celebrating them.

2.) The Colossians were celebrating God's feasts, they were being judged by pagans because they were, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone judge them for celebrating them.

In Colossians 2:16-23, Paul described the people who were judging the Colossians as promoting human precepts and tradition, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, which means that they were being judged by pagans and that the second scenario was the case. Those promoting asceticism and severity to the body would have been judging people for celebrating feasts, not for refraining from celebrating them.

In 1 Timothy 4:1-5, Paul described what he was speaking against as being the doctrine of demons, so that should be a major clue that he was not speaking against the holy, righteous, and good commandments of God. In Psalm 119:142, the Law of God is truth, so those who know and believe the truth know that unclean animals have not been sanctified by the Word of God, that unclean animals therefore do not meet the condition under which nothing is to be rejected, and that we should not receive with thanksgiving that which God said is an abomination. With respect to Colossians 2:16-23, Paul interacted with pagans who were speaking against eating clean animals that have been sanctified by the Word of God that were created to be received with thanksgiving.

The New Testament tells us clearly that Jesus Christ is our Passover. If you want to commemorate the day of Passover, that is a minor issue. If you want to eat lamb that day, again, not an issue. But that is not how Passover is "celebrated". If you want to sacrifice a lamb according to the law as your Passover sacrifice, that is an insult to Jesus Christ who is your Passover sacrifice. Jesus established the New Covenant in His blood when He instituted the Lord's table. That is the one and only feast we are to keep as part of our worship of the Lord. That is the feast that says we have a covenant with the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Soyeong]

The New Testament tells us clearly that Jesus Christ is our Passover. If you want to commemorate the day of Passover, that is a minor issue. If you want to eat lamb that day, again, not an issue. But that is not how Passover is "celebrated". If you want to sacrifice a lamb according to the law as your Passover sacrifice, that is an insult to Jesus Christ who is your Passover sacrifice. Jesus established the New Covenant in His blood when He instituted the Lord's table. That is the one and only feast we are to keep as part of our worship of the Lord. That is the feast that says we have a covenant with the Lord Jesus Christ.

In 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, Paul spoke in regard to how Passover foreshadowed Christ by drawing the connection of him being our Passover lamb, however, instead of concluding that we should stop celebrating Passover because that would insult Christ, he concluded that we should therefore continue to celebrate it. It is absurd to think that we can insult God’s Word made flesh by following the example that he set for us to follow of how to embody God’s Word. If anything, it would be the other way around because Jesus instructed us to celebrate Passover in remembrance of him. We should live in a way that testifies about Christ by following his example of celebrating Passover rather than a way that bears false witness against him. The only way that we should cease to celebrate Passover would be if what it teaches us about Christ were no longer true. In Jeremiah 31:33 and Ezekiel 36:26-27, the New Covenant still involves following God’s law and God did not give His law for the purpose of teaching us how to insult His Son.

 

[ZNP]

In 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, Paul spoke in regard to how Passover foreshadowed Christ by drawing the connection of him being our Passover lamb, however, instead of concluding that we should stop celebrating Passover because that would insult Christ, he concluded that we should therefore continue to celebrate it. It is absurd to think that we can insult God’s Word made flesh by following the example that he set for us to follow of how to embody God’s Word. If anything, it would be the other way around because Jesus instructed us to celebrate Passover in remembrance of him. We should live in a way that testifies about Christ by following his example of celebrating Passover rather than a way that bears false witness against him. The only way that we should cease to celebrate Passover would be if what it teaches us about Christ were no longer true. In Jeremiah 31:33 and Ezekiel 36:26-27, the New Covenant still involves following God’s law and God did not give His law for the purpose of teaching us how to insult His Son.

The Lord's table is our Passover feast. We keep the Lord's table. If you want to celebrate Passover as a yearly holiday that is of course your choice. But if you are sacrificing a lamb as a sin offering, or peace offering, well then, that is an insult to the Lord Jesus. The blood of lambs and bulls does not cleanse us from sin or bring peace with God. If you are putting the blood of a lamb on your door thinking that will cover your house with God's protection, that is an insult to the Lord Jesus. It is His blood and the covenant we have with Him that covers our house with His protection. The Old Testament feast of Passover was a yearly thing that they did until Jesus would come and the book of Hebrews makes that very clear.

Hebrews 10:29 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?

 

[Soyeong]

The Lord's table is our Passover feast. We keep the Lord's table. If you want to celebrate Passover as a yearly holiday that is of course your choice. But if you are sacrificing a lamb as a sin offering, or peace offering, well then, that is an insult to the Lord Jesus. The blood of lambs and bulls does not cleanse us from sin or bring peace with God. If you are putting the blood of a lamb on your door thinking that will cover your house with God's protection, that is an insult to the Lord Jesus. It is His blood and the covenant we have with Him that covers our house with His protection. The Old Testament feast of Passover was a yearly thing that they did until Jesus would come and the book of Hebrews makes that very clear.

Hebrews 10:29 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?

Sin is the transgression of the Law of God (1 John 3:4), so while it is your choice to refrain from celebrating Passover if you don't want to do that, but is still a sin for you to not do that. Again, it is completely absurd to think that God has commanded to insult Christ, but even if it were true that God has commanded to insult Christ, then we should insult Christ because it would be a sin to disobey what God has commanded. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speak against obeying what He has commanded, is either incorrect to interpret the author of Hebrews as doing that or he was a false prophet, but either way followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to what God has commanded if it that bizarrely somehow insults Christ.

Hebrews 10:28-29 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

The context is clearly speaking against setting aside the Law of Moses, so it doesn't work to interpret verse 29 as saying that there is an even greater punishment for not setting aside the Law of Moses.

 

[ZNP]

Sin is the transgression of the Law of God (1 John 3:4), so while it is your choice to refrain from celebrating Passover if you don't want to do that, but is still a sin for you to not do that. Again, it is completely absurd to think that God has commanded to insult Christ, but even if it were true that God has commanded to insult Christ, then we should insult Christ because it would be a sin to disobey what God has commanded. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speak against obeying what He has commanded, is either incorrect to interpret the author of Hebrews as doing that or he was a false prophet, but either way followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to what God has commanded if it that bizarrely somehow insults Christ.

Hebrews 10:28-29 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

The context is clearly speaking against setting aside the Law of Moses, so it doesn't work to interpret verse 29 as saying that there is an even greater punishment for not setting aside the Law of Moses.

This is gobbledegook. I celebrate my covenant with God and the Passover every time I take the Lord's table. The covenant I have with God was made with the Lord's blood.

 

[Soyeong]

This is gobbledegook. I celebrate my covenant with God and the Passover every time I take the Lord's table. The covenant I have with God was made with the Lord's blood.

God commanded to celebrate Passover (Leviticus 23), so if it your position that celebrating Passover insults Christ, then how is it not your position that God commanded to insult Christ?

Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of God by word and by example and the reason why he established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or so that we could be free to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Law of God (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27). If you don't want to obey the Law of God, then why would you want to come under the New Covenant?

 

[ZNP]

God commanded to celebrate Passover (Leviticus 23), so if it your position that celebrating Passover insults Christ, then how is it not your position that God commanded to insult Christ?

Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of God by word and by example and the reason why he established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or so that we could be free to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Law of God (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27). If you don't want to obey the Law of God, then why would you want to come under the New Covenant?

That is not my position unless you think that celebrating passover includes putting the blood of a lamb on your door and that it is the lamb's blood that covers your house and not Jesus' blood. If you do not realize that Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God, and that it is His blood that redeems you and nothing else, then yes, anything else that you need is an insult to God.

You clearly do not understand the book of Hebrews. It is clear that if they have to sacrifice these animals again and again and again in order to deal with sin that they don't wash away sins the way the Lord's blood does. They simply gave you a one year atoning sacrifice until the real sacrifice would come. Jesus death fulfilled all the sacrifices, it is a once for all sacrifice. That is clearly articulated in the book of Hebrews.

 

[Soyeong]

That is not my position unless you think that celebrating passover includes putting the blood of a lamb on your door and that it is the lamb's blood that covers your house and not Jesus' blood. If you do not realize that Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God, and that it is His blood that redeems you and nothing else, then yes, anything else that you need is an insult to God.

You clearly do not understand the book of Hebrews. It is clear that if they have to sacrifice these animals again and again and again in order to deal with sin that they don't wash away sins the way the Lord's blood does. They simply gave you a one year atoning sacrifice until the real sacrifice would come. Jesus death fulfilled all the sacrifices, it is a once for all sacrifice. That is clearly articulated in the book of Hebrews.

The first Passover involved the Israelites being required to put the blood of the lamb on their door, but that is not part of what was required for subsequent celebrations of Passover, though the subsequent celebrations of Passover did instruct to eat of the Passover lamb, which is not an insult to Christ, but is in honor of him.

When God has commanded something and spoken against listening to anyone who speaks against following what He has commanded and you think that the author of Hebrews should be interpreted as speaking against following what He has commanded, then do you think that we should follow God or the author of Hebrews? If you think that the author of Hebrews was a servant of God, then you should be opposed to you interpreting him as speaking against following what God has commanded and if you think that the author of Hebrews should be interpreted as speaking against obeying what God has commanded, then you should be opposed to you considering them to be a servant of God, but Deuteronomy 13 does not leave room for someone to consider the author of Hebrews to be a servant of God while also thinking that they should be interpreted as speaking against following what He has commanded.

 

[bytheblood]

God did not intervene when Paul shaved his head. He intervened at the end of the vow when they were going to sacrifice a bull, paid for by Paul. Read Hebrews, it is absolutely crystal clear that sacrificing a bull after Jesus had been sacrificed for us was an insult to God and to the Lord. This is why I think that both Paul and James were involved in writing Hebrews, it was the revelation that the church did not have at the time but now has.

The idea that since James and Paul wrote books of the Bible that therefore their own actions in their life had to be infallible is not just completely absurd but debunked by Paul who said he was less than the least of the apostles because of his sins and failings. If we are to believe this ridiculous doctrine that the apostles could do no wrong, then that means Peter did no wrong when he denied the Lord. And in Galatians Paul calls this group of Judaizers the "concision" and says they apparently came from James. One way or another, the record is clear, James was commending all those who "were zealous for the law" and that alone gave the Judaizers cover.

Peter repented of his denial and that was the basis of his ministry, Paul repented of his sins and that was the basis of his ministry and the principle would be the same for James.

What was presented indicated, to me, that some of Paul's and James WRITINGS were wrong, not their actions. Elijah, the first to raise someone from the dead, call fire down from heaven, etc., etc. was subjected to the same temptations and failures, as we all are, so I certainly don't think and didn't mean to imply that Paul and James weren't. I don't know of the doctrine to which you refer. Repentance is the first step of salvation for all. While it's not stated that God intervened to prevent the sacrifice of the bull, we can assume it was divine intervention.

 

[bytheblood]

Colossians 2:16 by itself leaves room for two scenarios:

1.) The Colossians were not celebrating God's feasts, they were being judged by Jews because they were not, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone judging not celebrating them.

2.) The Colossians were celebrating God's feasts, they were being judged by pagans because they were, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone judge them for celebrating them.

In Colossians 2:16-23, Paul described the people who were judging the Colossians as promoting human precepts and tradition, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, which means that they were being judged by pagans and that the second scenario was the case. Those promoting asceticism and severity to the body would have been judging people for celebrating feasts, not for refraining from celebrating them.

In 1 Timothy 4:1-5, Paul described what he was speaking against as being the doctrine of demons, so that should be a major clue that he was not speaking against the holy, righteous, and good commandments of God. In Psalm 119:142, the Law of God is truth, so those who know and believe the truth know that unclean animals have not been sanctified by the Word of God, that unclean animals therefore do not meet the condition under which nothing is to be rejected, and that we should not receive with thanksgiving that which God said is an abomination. With respect to Colossians 2:16-23, Paul interacted with pagans who were speaking against eating clean animals that have been sanctified by the Word of God that were created to be received with thanksgiving.

It cannot not be disputed that Paul ate with Gentiles. Do we assume that he ate only food that had been handled and cooked by kosher standards, that it was only (" clean " ) animals? I think not. As a matter of fact, a Jew was not even to eat with Gentiles. " Whatsoever is sold in the shambles (market), that eat, ASKING NO QUESTION FOR CONSCIENCE SAKE ( IS THIS KOSHER?). For the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and you be deposed to go; WHATSOEVER is set before you, EAT, asking no question for conscience sake." 1 Cor. 10:25-27

 

[bytheblood]

It cannot not be disputed that Paul ate with Gentiles. Do we assume that he ate only food that had been handled and cooked by kosher standards, that it was only (" clean " ) animals? I think not. As a matter of fact, a Jew was not even to eat with Gentiles. " Whatsoever is sold in the shambles (market), that eat, ASKING NO QUESTION FOR CONSCIENCE SAKE ( IS THIS KOSHER?). For the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and you be deposed to go; WHATSOEVER is set before you, EAT, asking no question for conscience sake." 1 Cor. 10:25-27

P.S. " For EVERY CREATURE of God is good, and NOTHING TO BE REFUSED, IF IT BE RECEIVED WITH THANKSGIVING. For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." 1 Tim. 4:4-5

 

[Soyeong]

It cannot not be disputed that Paul ate with Gentiles. Do we assume that he ate only food that had been handled and cooked by kosher standards, that it was only (" clean " ) animals? I think not. As a matter of fact, a Jew was not even to eat with Gentiles. " Whatsoever is sold in the shambles (market), that eat, ASKING NO QUESTION FOR CONSCIENCE SAKE ( IS THIS KOSHER?). For the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and you be deposed to go; WHATSOEVER is set before you, EAT, asking no question for conscience sake." 1 Cor. 10:25-27

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.

P.S. " For EVERY CREATURE of God is good, and NOTHING TO BE REFUSED, IF IT BE RECEIVED WITH THANKSGIVING. For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." 1 Tim. 4:4-5

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?

 

[Cameron143]

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?

Romans 14:14
1 Corinthians 9:19-23

 

[Soyeong]

Romans 14:14

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.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23

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.

 

[ZNP]

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?

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"?