Why God forbid the Jews to eat Pork.

[Ben W]

Might well have something to do with this.

http://snipurl.com/glcd

[Ps104_33]

They probably saw some of the things they eat. Believe me a pig will eat anything! I could tell you of an experience I had when I was a kid concerning some pigs but I dont want to make any of you sick.

[Marcia]

We don't know why God forbade them from eating pork; we only know that God was teaching them clean and unclean so they could understand the holiness of God, and be set apart from the pagan customs.

In Acts this was all changed when God said no food was unclean. This is repeated in another part of the NT which I can't think of right now.

Of course, I think today we can take into the account the problems (and cruelty) of factory farming and how it is not really hygenic. I'm glad I'm vegetarian.

[DHK]

Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

1 Timothy 4:4-5 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

1 Corinthians 10:25-26 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.

1 Corinthians 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

Mark 7:18-23 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

The Bible is clear. God has created all things, and nothing is to be unclean.
The only reason that some foods were unclean in the OT, or that God gave them a very special diet is for reasons of separation from all the other nations. Their diet was different. Their clothing was different. Their religion was different. Their entire way of life was different. Everything about them was different. And so it should be with us. We are different from the world--maybe not so much in our diet--but in our separation from the world, which may include many things: the music we listen to, the way we dress, the places we go to, the friends we choose, etc.
DHK

[Magnetic Poles]

Next, it'll be bird flu in chickens and mad cow disease in beef. What are we gonna eat?

MMMmmmmm!!! Donuts!

[DHK]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
Next, it'll be bird flu in chickens and mad cow disease in beef. What are we gonna eat?

MMMmmmmm!!! Donuts! God gave us common sense, a brain to use, technology that our brain has been able to develop over time. We ought to thank him for what he do have available to us, not complain for the unknown diseases that have come our way. And thank God, that he has enabled us to find cures for these various things. Just think, some years ago, the cure for epilepsy and some other diseases was drinking the urine of a cow. Aren't you glad that technology has increased to the point that we know a bit more than that, even though we don't know all that we should about epilepsy.
DHK

[Ben W]

What I find interesting is that Pigs are actually Cannibals. If a pig dies in the sty and the others are hungry they will eat it, resultingly if you then eat the flesh of one of those pigs that has been into Cannibalism, you will get the pig version of mad cow disease and die.

What God commanded then to the Jews makes alot of sense, because He spared them from being exposed to disease that would have ravaged them. Even today in third world nations where there is much disease, if you implement the cleanliness and eating laws of the Old Testament, you can stop most diseases in their tracks.

Amazing that what science discovers today, the Bible taught 6000+ years ago!

[just-want-peace]

Amazing that what science discovers today, the Bible taught 6000+ years ago!Don't remember the author, but an excellent book re: this is "NONE OF THESE DISEASES".

Makes an excellent devotional book also.

[Kamoroso]

The dietary laws given to Moses by God, were for the general health of His people. Both long, and short term. Anyone who has a heart attack, will immediately be told by their doctor to stop eating pork, red meat, and all other foods that retain to much fat. Do you think that God is unaware of these basics?

Also, as we are just now learning, animals can spread deadly disease to humans. No doubt, those that have been pronounced unclean, are more likely to do so. However, we know from the mad cow incidents, that this is not always the case, even though we basically brought that one upon ourselves.

I have read articles to the effect that influenza, which wiped out about fifty million people when it first broke out, came from swine, or pig. No doubt, those animals which retain more fat, may also more easily retain diseases that we could catch from eating them. Everyone knows not to eat pork that isn’t cooked well, the consequences could be deadly. God told the children of Israel not even to touch swine. No doubt this is because of their filthy life style. Remember, there was no modern medicine to stop the spread of disease in those days. Naturally then, God took every precaution for His people, to keep them healthy, and happy.

There are those who twist the scriptures to say that everything is clean to be eaten. This is nonsense. There are countless things in nature, that if eaten, will kill the ones who eat it. Either everything is clean, or some things aren’t, and some things are. You can’t have it both ways.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Ben W:
What I find interesting is that Pigs are actually Cannibals. If a pig dies in the sty and the others are hungry they will eat it, resultingly if you then eat the flesh of one of those pigs that has been into Cannibalism, you will get the pig version of mad cow disease and die. Not necessarily. Mad cow disease and other prion diseases arise spontaneously in some animals or people due to a genetic mutation. The mutated prion is an abnormal protein that is resistant to breakdown. It has the ability to modify normal prions to the abnormal configuation. The prion can be spread to other animals or people by the consumption of tissue containing the prion, especially nerve or brain tissue. We made mad cow disease a problem by putting animal meal into cow feed. Theoretically a pig cannibalizing another could transmit a prion disease, but not likely as the spontaneous disease is rare.

Where prion diseases are concerned sheep are more likely to be a vector, and they are considered clean animals. The prion disease called scrapie is a fairly common problem among sheep. Fortunately there is so far no evidence that it spreads to people.

Pigs aren't really filthy animals besides rolling in mud because they are unable to sweat. As long as good husbandry practices are followed they will be relatively clean.

What would fat have to do with "retaining disease"?

I think they may have been named unclean because they do have more of a chance of transmitting trichina from undercooked meat, or possibly because they are omnivorous, or maybe just because!

[BobRyan]

rats cats bears and bats - God forbade mankind from eating them because as the Creator of ALL biology HE knows what is "edible" and what is "for food" (these the words HE uses in Lev 11).

Even before the Jews and before Israel - in Gen 7 God was making this distinction.

John Gill points this out as applicable LONG BEFORE Sinai --

John Gill's Commentary on Gen 7 vs 1
[b]Verse 2.
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens,.... From hence it appears, that the distinction of clean and unclean beasts, at least for sacrifice, if not for food, was known before the flood, and so before the law of Moses; though some think this is said by anticipation, and as providing a large stock of such creatures for the propagation of their species; because they would be most serviceable to men both for food and sacrifice: but as it is certain that sacrifices were offered ever since the fall of man; by the same way, namely, by divine revelation, that men were taught to sacrifice creatures as typical of the sacrifice of Christ, they were directed what sort of creatures to offer, as were most suitable figures of him; those beasts that were clean, and used under the law, and so no doubt, at this time, were oxen, sheep, and goats: and these were to be taken into the ark by "sevens," or "seven seven" {p}; either only three pairs, male and female, for procreation, and the seventh a male for sacrifice, when the flood was over; or rather fourteen, seven couple, an equal number of male and female, as Aben Ezra and Ben Gersom, that there might be enough for propagation; since a large number of them would be consumed, both for food and sacrifice:
In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

From Lev 11

Christ the Creator provides HIS statement on what is food for mankind and what is “not edible” what is “not to be eaten”


Leviticus 11
1 The LORD spoke again to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them,
2 ""Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, " These are the creatures which you may eat from all the animals that are on the earth.
Since God is making the rules here – and God is the Creator of all flesh – mankind does well to listen to Christ the Creator in this regard.

God speaks of what we are not to eat and what we may eat of. (this is not a command that we MUST eat of the clean only that we are allowed to eat of it)

There is a very simply rule for land animals.


3 "Whatever divides a hoof, thus making split hoofs, and chews the cud, among the animals, that you may eat.
Again not that you “must eat them” but you are allowed to eat them.

However the following list are unclean and “must not” be eaten.


4 "Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these, among those which chew the cud, or among those which divide the hoof: the camel, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you.
5 "Likewise, the shaphan, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you;
6 the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you;
7 and the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you.
8 "You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.
...



41 " Now every swarming thing that swarms on the earth is detestable, not to be eaten.
42 "Whatever crawls on its belly, and whatever walks on all fours, whatever has many feet, in respect to every swarming thing that swarms on the earth, you shall not eat them, for they are detestable.
43 " Do not render yourselves detestable through any of the swarming things that swarm; and you shall not make yourselves unclean with them so that you become unclean.
God appeals to His own Lordship over mankind – His role as Creator and His right to call mankind to be “Holy” for “God IS Holy” rather than God’s people choosing to be “detestable”

44 "For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things that swarm on the earth.
45 " For I am the LORD who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy.'''
God calls upon His people to BE like God in walking in holiness. John says we are to WALK as Christ walked in 1John 2.

Paul says we Have “the mind of Christ” in 1Cor 2.

In summary God calls this section HIS view of what may be eaten – and what should not be eaten at all.

46 This is the law regarding the animal and the bird, and every living thing that moves in the waters and everything that swarms on the earth,
47 to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the edible creature and the creature which is not to be eaten.
Clearly then the rat, cat, dog and bat sandwich “is not to be eaten”, and mankind can freely read and know this.

Christ the Creator did not say “please do not eat “too much” of the rat, dog, and cat sandwich”. Nor did He argue “because you are in poor health today - then for a while you may not eat of the rat, cat, dog and bat sandwich”. All such edits of the text are merely “wishful thinking”.

[hillclimber]

If you are going to keep that portion of the law, why not keep all of it? Whould you not be that much more spiritual, and healthy?

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Ben W:
What I find interesting is that Pigs are actually Cannibals. If a pig dies in the sty and the others are hungry they will eat it...That's not exactly cannibalism, it's scaverngerism. Many scavenger animals will eat their own kind if hungry enough.

BTW, this typically applies to ferrol animals. Domesticated animals, including pigs, typically won't engage in it' since they are typically well fed.

Take if from me, a 4H parent.

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by hillclimber:
If you are going to keep that portion of the law, why not keep all of it? Whould you not be that much more spiritual, and healthy? The bottom line is "how many ways are there to ignore the Word of God?".

In other words -- if we dont simply "ignore all of it" then can we just turn a blind eye to EVERYTHING before the cross?

You know - the Gospels and ALL the OT???

What about just ignoring the first 5 books of the Bible?

OF course that would mean that all the NT writers were wrong to quote those 5 books -- but we could pretend not to notice that - couldn't we?

In Christ,

Bob

[Eric B]

Remember, there was no modern medicine to stop the spread of disease in those days. Naturally then, God took every precaution for His people, to keep them healthy, and happy.
There are those who twist the scriptures to say that everything is clean to be eaten. This is nonsense. There are countless things in nature, that if eaten, will kill the ones who eat it. Either everything is clean, or some things aren’t, and some things are. You can’t have it both ways. Then why aren't all of these other things, such as poison ivy and poison mushroom/toadstool, etc. ever called "unclean"? Because unclean is NOT about "health". It is about spiritual "DEFILEment"! You yourself said it: "No doubt this is because of their filthy life style." This had MORAL/spiritual significance, and note the behavioral characteristics of all the clean animals compared to the unclean(physically "filthy" or not. The hare has the same basic diet as the clean animals, but it was a pest to an agrarian society, and it's quick multiplying was associated with lasciviousness. And note, it is only animals; no plants.
And if pork is so "poisonous" like those other things, why are people able to eat it so long? What about all the centenarians who are not kosher?).

[Claudia_T]

God forbade His people to eat pork in the Old Testament because it was harmful to the human body.

And that fact doesnt change just because we are living in the time of the New Testament. Pork is still harmful to the human body, as is all of the unclean meats. God does not arbitrarily forbid His creatures to do things just to show His power, He does it because He loves them and doesnt wish any harm to come to them.

The unclean animals were not designed to be used as human food.

[Claudia_T]

Go to:
http://www.amazingfacts.org/media/radio/question_archive.asp?tName=Health


and click on:

Is it unhealthy to eat pork?


and of course there are more links there you can listen to on clean and unclean meats, etc.

[Petrel]

I think I mostly agree with Eric B here--they weren't unclean necessarily because they're bad to eat. However, although they were unclean, I don't think they're forbidden to eat today.

In Acts 15 there was a great debate about whether Gentile believers needed to become circumcised and follow Mosaic law. The upshot of this was:

For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well.Because of this, I think we can eat as much pork and rabbit as we like. If it was good enough for Sam Gamgee, it's good enough for me! ;)

[Eric B]

You still have to explain why there is no command not to eat poisonous plants, and nothing about "defilement" regarding them. And how people can live to be 100 eating pork.
This "health" argument actually plays into the hands of people who dismiss the Bible as manmade, and/or that because there are healthier ways to prepare it, that proves the law is outdated.

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by hillclimber:
If you are going to keep that portion of the law, why not keep all of it? Whould you not be that much more spiritual, and healthy? The bottom line is "how many ways are there to ignore the Word of God?".

In other words -- if we dont simply "ignore all of it" then can we just turn a blind eye to EVERYTHING before the cross?

You know - the Gospels and ALL the OT???

What about just ignoring the first 5 books of the Bible?

OF course that would mean that all the NT writers were wrong to quote those 5 books -- but we could pretend not to notice that - couldn't we?

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]I'm certainly not advocating ignoring any of the Bible. But differentiate between the different areas of it, with the Golden rule of Bible Study:
1. Who is speaking?

2. To whom is he speaking?

3. About what is he speaking?

4. When was it spoken?

All the Bible was written for you
Not all was written to you
Not all was written about you

[steaver]

I was wondering if any SDA's here believe that eating pork condemns a Christian to hell?

I met a few about four years back who believed this.

God Bless!

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Claudia_T:
Go to:
http://www.amazingfacts.org/media/radio/question_archive.asp?tName=Health


and click on:

Is it unhealthy to eat pork?Caudia, that's a 7th Day Adventist website. They believe that eating ANY animal is unhealthy. Plus, they believe we're all sinning because we gather for worship on Sunday instead of Saturday.

[TorahKeeper]

I wonder why people are so eager to dismiss the very words of God? He said not to eat it, if you truly are His own would you not want to obey Him? I guess thats too simple?

[prophecynut]

Romans 14:20

"Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean , but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble." NIV

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
I wonder why people are so eager to dismiss the very words of God? He said not to eat it, if you truly are His own would you not want to obey Him? I guess thats too simple? He also said to refrain from sitting on a chair tha a menstruating woman has sat upon. Do you do that as well? Gos also says to offer animal sacrifice as a reminder of sin. Do we still do that? God said to wear distinctive clothing apart from the gentiles. I wear the same clothing as the gentiles. God commanded that every male be circumcised on the 8th day. Do we as Christians do that still? (the majority of Christians don't circumcise their sons at all). God commands in the OT to celebrate passover with a sacrificed passover lamb. Do we still do that?


God never instructs without a reason. The reasons for these and other old Covenant laws has long since passed.

[TorahKeeper]

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

I wonder who said that???

Of course if you separate the Son and the Father then you get to ignore His commandments.

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Wonder who said that?

And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Wonder who said that??

For I [am] the LORD, I change not..

Guess who said that?

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Anyone wanna guess who said that??

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Sounds like someone was speaking of the 'modern' day church to me, but what do I know.

You may disagree with me but remember, the Law was spoken by the very Mouth of God Himself. So if you want to eliminate it, remember this, you will get to explain that to Him one day, I hope you have a good answer.

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
If ye love me, keep my commandments.Then answer my questions:

God also said to refrain from sitting on a chair tha a menstruating woman has sat upon. Do you do that as well?

God also says to offer animal sacrifice as a reminder of sin. Do you do that?

God said to wear distinctive clothing apart from the gentiles. I wear the same clothing as the gentiles. What clothing do you wear?

God commanded that every male be circumcised on the 8th day. Do we as Christians do that still? Do you? (the majority of Christians don't circumcise their sons at all).

God commands in the OT to celebrate passover with a sacrificed passover lamb. Do we still do that?

[TorahKeeper]

I guess we can just eliminate God's commandments. Its ok, God didnt really mean it when He said to be obedient.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

I guess Yeshua didn't really mean that did He, He was just kiddin'

[steaver]

Good questions Johnv. I would like to hear answers to these from TorahKeeper as well.

God Bless!

[Petrel]

TorahKeeper, you accept the New Testament, right? The abolition of circumcision as a requirement for believers is a major event in New Testament history. We believe that the Law was given to the people so that they would become aware of their sin (Romans 3:20) and of the necessity for a blood sacrifice to cover that sin (Hebrews 9:6-10).

In fact, that Hebrews reference is so clear I'll post it in greater length (6-15).

When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. As I see it, all of the ceremonial laws regarding uncleaness, whether from touching a dead animal, eating unclean meat, sitting where a menstruating woman had sat--all of that was just to illustrate to the people the importance of being separate from the world and also the impossibility of remaining clean by their own efforts. Ultimately they all needed a sacrifice.

The ceremonial uncleaness and the sacrifical system required to purge it were a type of what was to come. That was Jesus, who became both High Priest and sacrifice for us in the Most Holy never seen by human eyes.

Hebrews 10:11-25
Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:

"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds."

Then he adds:

"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more."

And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. Jesus made the final sacrifice that is forever sufficient to cover all of our sins. Trying to follow the ceremonial Law at this point would be like running through the dress rehearsal after the last curtain call.

There are still parts of the Law that are in effect today. The parts governing morality are still in effect. However, I don't think that the distinction between the clean and unclean animals is based on this type of morality. I think the separation of clean and unclean was more to illustrate the way that the Chosen People had been separated from the world. Evidence of this is found in Paul's vision in Acts 10. There the unclean animals that he is told to eat are symbolic of the Gentiles. The purpose of the dream was to tell Paul to take the gospel to the Gentiles, so the division between the Jews and the Gentiles had been abolished and thus the reason for calling animals unclean.

The very fact that meat from unclean animals isn't really considered in the New Testament argues that it isn't important now. All of the evidence that we have regarding meat (Acts 10, Romans 14:20, Acts 15) indicates that the clean/unclean divide had been done away with. When coupled with the teachings on the Law in Galatians and Hebrews, I think it becomes clear that this isn't an issue for us today.

Sorry to get so long-winded. The topic of the Law and how it foreshadows Jesus is really interesting to me! :D

[Johnv]

Torahkeeper, you have not yet answered my questions:

God also said to refrain from sitting on a chair tha a menstruating woman has sat upon. Do you do that as well?

God also says to offer animal sacrifice as a reminder of sin. Do you do that?

God said to wear distinctive clothing apart from the gentiles. I wear the same clothing as the gentiles. What clothing do you wear?

God commanded that every male be circumcised on the 8th day. Do we as Christians do that still? Do you? (the majority of Christians don't circumcise their sons at all).

God commands in the OT to celebrate passover with a sacrificed passover lamb. Do we still do that?

[TorahKeeper]

If you knew anything about the sacrificial system you would know that you can only sacrifice on a altar properly dedicated to God at the Temple, so I cannot do those. The other commandments, I do them as best as I can. Does that provide or maintain my salvation? Of course not, its just I have decided to be obedient to the Creator of the World. I guess my question is, why dont you want to be obedient to Him? Why would you encourage others to be dis-obedient?

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
If you knew anything about the sacrificial system you would know that you can only sacrifice on a altar properly dedicated to God at the Temple, so I cannot do those.
Does your place of worship engage in animal sacrifices? If they don't, then you should be calling for them, and the rest of us, to adopt this practice.
The other commandments, I do them as best as I can.
Then you should be able to answer the questions. They're simple "yes" or "no":

Do you refrain from sitting on a chair that a menstruating woman has sat upon?

Do you wear distinctive clothing to set yourself apart from the gentiles?

Do you or your church engage in the practice of circumcising your male children on the 8th day after birth.

Do you celebrate passover with a sacrificed passover lamb?

Does that provide or maintain my salvation? Of course not...
I never said it did.
Why would you encourage others to be dis-obedient? I don't. I disagree with your requisite for obedience.

[TorahKeeper]

Like I said before, if you understood the sacrificial system you would know that sacrifices are to be done only on a properly dedicated altar in Jerusalem. If I called for sacrifices or conducted them, I would be in violation. Can I obey the law perfectly, of course not, I never claimed to. I do the best I can. Do I willingly do the things you stated no, if I do mess up, I can be forgiven. I have no children so I havent circumcised anyone.

If you say we are to not obey these and all the commandments then you are advocating disobedience.

Choose ye this day whom you will serve, Ba'al or God? The choice is yours. Be careful.

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
Do I willingly do the things you stated noHow hypocritical. You tell us we're in disobedience when we eat pork, yet you say clearly that you willingly disobey God's other OT laws. By your own standards, I guess you've chosen whom ye serve.

[TorahKeeper]

I suppose I should have stated that I dont disobey those commandments, I apologize for the unclear statement. I am not the one who said you are disobedient, talk to the One who spoke the commandment if you dont like it. I have chosen God

[Johnv]

Then you can answer my questions:

Do you refrain from sitting on a chair that a menstruating woman has sat upon?

Do you wear distinctive clothing to set yourself apart from the gentiles?

Does your church engage in the practice of circumcising your male children on the 8th day after birth? Will you, if you have a son, circumcize him eight days after birth?

Do you celebrate passover with a sacrificed passover lamb?

[TorahKeeper]

How many times do I have to say that I obey.

Yes I do refrain from the chair.

I try to keep my clothing separate but its hard to sometimes.

There is no law that says a congregation is to circumcise a boy.

How many times do I need to tell you about the sacrifices, can you read????

Let me ask, do you have any idea why God spoke those Laws?

[StefanM]

TorahKeeper, would you consider the Torah binding on Gentile Christians?

[TorahKeeper]

What do you mean by 'binding'????

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
I try to keep my clothing separate but its hard to sometimes.
Rabbinnic Jews don't seem to have a problem with it at all. It should not be difficult for you.
There is no law that says a congregation is to circumcise a boy.
If you have a son, will you circumcise him 8 days after he is born?
How many times do I need to tell you about the sacrifices, can you read????
Eating of a sacrificed passover lamb has nothing to do with the temple at Jerusalem. Orthodox Jews eat sacrificed lambs for passover today. Your answer clearly says that you do not.
Let me ask, do you have any idea why God spoke those Laws? There are three man types of OT law:

Moral Codes (such as the Ten Commandments) are right and wrong principles considered to be universally applicable to everyone. They are still in effect today, though the methodology may change from time to time.

Civil Codes were laws given by God to the early Israelites for the purpose of civil governance and order. They were specific to the Iseaelite nation after they left Egypt. They no longer apply today.

Priestly Codes were laws given to the Israelites to set them apart after they fled Egypt, to make them different, aimed to prevent the Israelites from adopting practices common among the Canaanites in whose land they were settling, thus making it impossible for the Israelites to live comfortably among the Canaanites. They included laws like not wearing clothing made with two types of fabric, not eating pork or shellfish, not trimming the hair around your temples, not mixing meat and dairy, etc. They are no longer in effect today. Paul even addressed these laws in his dissertation of letting each person remain "convinced in his own mind" (in other words, do not let yourself be judged by whether or not, or how, you adopt these rules). Paul was, btw, an uncircumcised Gentile who did not adhere to Rabbinnic laws. So unless Paul was wrong, I'm allowing my son to keep himself intact, and eat bacon as well.

[StefanM]

Are Gentile Christians, in your view, required to adhere to the Mosaic Law?

[TorahKeeper]

Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. Phl 3:4-6

Paul was describing himself there.

Paul didn't have the authority to eliminate God's Law, anyway why would you want to eliminate the Law. Also,

Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave [their] heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but [that] thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Acts 21:24

Paul kept the law in this passage, so it proves he didn't eliminate the law.

[Johnv]

You're completely correct. Paul was Jewish. I sit corrected.

However, Paul preached that circumcision was not necessary, and Peter agreed with Paul that circumcision was indeed not necessary (Acts 15:6-21).

So, either the rabbinnic laws are no longer in effect, or Peter and Paul are liars.

[TorahKeeper]

Paul was speaking of obeying laws to obtain salvation. I have never advocating that, FAith produces Salvation... Obedience produces Blessings.... If you prefer curses then continue to disobey God's commandments. If you prefer the blessings, be obedient.

[StefanM]

What of Gentiles, though?

[TorahKeeper]

I dont understand the question?

[StefanM]

Are Gentiles required to obey the Mosaic Law, which, by the way, was never given to them?

[Petrel]

Funny you didn't quote the next verse: "As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."

Returning to sacrifices for sin, why would we continue with sacrifices when the last sacrifice has been made?

How do you respond to what I quoted earlier out of Hebrews? The entire book of Hebrews argues for Jesus as the fulfillment of the old covenant. If you believe that Jesus died as a perfect sacrifice for our sins and that his blood is sufficient to cover them forever, then what reason is there for continued sacrifice? Even if you could find a priest to sanctify an altar, it would be meaningless!

As for Paul's belief regarding the law (Galatians 3:19-25):

What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.

Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.Paul clearly believed that it was impossible to become righteous by following the Law and that the Law was placed in effect until Jesus came and died for us. Now the Law is fulfilled, and all of the ceremonial rules and sacrifices for sin are set aside.

Paul went to worship at the Temple. It was an appropriate place to worship. They apparently were offering gifts of thanksgiving, not sacrifices for sin. Moreover, he went so that the unsaved Jews who were following the Law would not be offended, so that his witness would not be impaired. None of this indicates that we are still under the Law today.

[TorahKeeper]

If you understood what the vow they were takin was you would understand that Paul did sacrifice. CHeck out Numbers chapter 6, it explains it very well.

I never said obedience to the law provides salvation.

God said to be obedient to His commandments forever, its not a difficult concept.

[Petrel]

I'm having trouble getting you to respond, so I'll pick one point:

If the Law is still in effect as it was then, why was Paul opposed to circumcision?

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
If you prefer curses then continue to disobey God's commandments. If you prefer the blessings, be obedient. Paul preached that circumcision was not necessary, and Peter agreed with Paul that circumcision was indeed not necessary (Acts 15:6-21). They did not say that it was not neecessary for salvation, they said that it was not necesary, at all.

So, either the rabbinnic laws are no longer in effect, or Peter and Paul are liars. Which is it?
Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
God said to be obedient to His commandments forever, its not a difficult concept. Then Peter and Paul are liars, because they said keeping the law of circumcision was not necessary. Here is where your arguement falls apart.

[TorahKeeper]

Paul was not opposed to circumcision, Paul was opposed to the teaching that salvation provides salvation through obedience. Seems to me that you guys are eager to eliminate the Commandments of God, wonder why that is??

[Johnv]

You're sompletely wrong. Peter and Paul said that circumcision was not necessary. Period. They did not say that circumcision was unnecessary for salvation, they said circumcision was unnecessary. Period.

Your only defense is to admit that Rabinnic law no longer in affect, or that Peter and Paul lied. Which is it?

[TorahKeeper]

You are the one who is incorrect. They were speaking of the teaching not the act. You can eliminate God's Laws if you choose, just have a good answer to Him.

Rabinnic Law is not God's Law, you should really study more, it would help you immensley.

[Petrel]

Galatians 2:1-5

Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.Paul describes those who would demand others be circumcised as false brothers seeking to lead us into slavery by perverting the Gospel!

[TorahKeeper]

Thank you for proving my point, they were speaking of the false teaching.

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
Thank you for proving my point, they were speaking of the false teaching. That's exactly the point. Requiring adherence to the Rabinnic laws is false teaching. That's you.

[Petrel]

Umm, the false teaching was circumcision.

Titus 1:10-16

For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

[TorahKeeper]

Circumcision was instituted by God Himself, are you saying He created a false teaching????

You are treading on dangerous ground

[Petrel]

No, silly! :D

As I said before, the Law was instituted as a pointer towards Jesus. With Jesus, the Law was fulfilled. Since it is fulfilled, continuing to follow it would be pointless. This is the same thing that every passage I've quoted says. How do you respond to Hebrews if you think that the Law remains? It clearly says that it does not!

Here's another one:

Galatians 2:11-14

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
Circumcision was instituted by God Himself, are you saying He created a false teaching????No one said that. Circumcision was instituted by God Himself. That institution is no longer in effect.

Peter and Paul said that circumcision was not necessary. Are you saying they lied? You are treading on dangerous ground here.

[Petrel]

And here Paul gets so angry at those saying that circumcision is still required that he gets carried away and would no doubt be edited if he had posted on this board except for the fact that it's in the Bible. :D

Galatians 5:2-12

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

[TorahKeeper]

Why cant you see that Paul was speaking of the false teaching of obedience produces salvation. Why do you so desier to eliminate the wordws of God Himself?

Curious

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
Why cant you see that Paul was speaking of the false teaching of obedience produces salvation.Because he wasn't. Peter and Paul expressly saud that said that circumcision was not necessary.

You say they lied. I can believe you, or scripture. I'll believe scripture.

[Petrel]

Paul taught that circumcision was placing oneself back under the Law and away from grace. He elsewhere says that circumcision is irrelevant to us now. If you want to have your sons circumcised and aren't doing it as a means of getting points with God, go ahead, but the minute you start saying that it is a commandment that all males be circumcised, that's when you fall away from grace.

[TorahKeeper]

I never said they lied. you are not able to discern what they are teaching. You really need some help

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
I never said they lied. you are not able to discern what they are teaching. You really need some help What they are teaching is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. They are teaching that CIRCUMCISION IS NO LONGER NECESSARY. Period, end of story. They weren't talking about just grace, they weren't talking about just salvation. They were saying that CIRCUMCISION IS NO LONGER NECESSARY. Period.

You're saying that circumcision is still in effect for Christians today. So, yes, you are calling Peter and Paul liars.

[Petrel]

Galatians 6:12-16

Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh. May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.

[TorahKeeper]

Deny it all you wish, they were speaking of false doctrines.

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
Deny it all you wish, they were speaking of false doctrines. Scripture doesn't say that. Not at all. In scripture, Peter and Paul areexpressly and clearly saying the circumcision is no longer required.

For you say they're saying something else is the result of you adding to scripture.

[Petrel]

If circumcision is still required for all of God's people, why did Paul order Titus to disobey God and not be circumcised? Why does the New Testament never anywhere order us to be circumcised? Why does Paul say repeatedly that circumcision means nothing? Why did Peter live like a Gentile, without following the Law?

[TorahKeeper]

Why do you need Paul to confirm something God told us to do already? Sounds like you are trusting man more than God. The passage with Titus dealt with false doctrines. Still not a difficult concept, unless you desire to be disobedient.

[Petrel]

Paul expressly said that Titus would not be circumcised. If circumcision was required and the only crime was having the wrong motivation for it, Paul would have told Titus to be circumcised but told us expressly that circumcision, while required, does not save. Instead he told us that circumcision is not required and does not save.

Your point of view has Paul and Titus committing a sin by failing to follow God's commandments just because of some people's misguided opinions. My interpretation is consistent with Paul's actions and words.

[TorahKeeper]

Paul was proving his point that salvation was not obtained by obedience. I wonder why you want to dismiss something that God Himself said? Very curious.

[Petrel]

Ok, I'll try an example. Say some bunch of loonies started saying that reading your Bible was necessary for salvation. Would you decide to make the point that it is not necessary by refusing to read your Bible ever again? :confused: That is essentially what you are saying that Paul is doing.

[StefanM]

How about this... are Gentiles required to be circumcised?

[yeshua4me2]

I have no dogamtic idea why God forbade pork. but (as i am now a farmer, though small time) i can give you reasons not to raise pigs.

here are some intresting facts about pigs (not all are reasons to not raise pork, but as you will see, there are some)


pigs do not sweat, therefore they cool by evaporation, by rolling in mud, and if no mud is available, they will make theri own (by peeing on dirt)

pigs require 10 times the water as cows or goats

pigs are incubatores for many diseases, sars was transmitted to humans by an avian flu "incubating" in a pig

pigs are used to make over 40 drugs including insuline

pigs are very "smart", they can be trained like a dog to do tricks, and can be house broken, so can goats

pigs are used in 1000's of industrial uses

pig fat is a poison inwhich bacteria (most harmful) cannot grow

pigfat is used in soap

pigs reqire more food "per pound of flesh" than all other farm animals

pigs carry trictinosis which is a most painful bacterial infection, that is deadly

trictinosos can only be killed by high temperature cooking, which was unlikely to be achieved before modern cooking methods

God promised that if Jews kept this law (and others obviously) that they would not suffer the fate of pagan nations. (trictinosis is historically and literally not a jewish disease)

pigs can swim

pigs are DIRECTALY responsible for many deaths during every major war in the last twothousand years. (exception being wars after the advent of modern farming method)

during WWI and WWII and Korea (when the armies of the world still kept livestock on bases) more deaths were caused by avian flues transmitted to humans by pig that the any major battel of the wars.

i very seldom eat pork, and would (except wild pigs) neevr raise them. wild pigs are worth a fortune, so i sell them when i trap them.

if pigs and birds (chickens or game birds) are kept seperatly they a perfectaly safe to raise.

i have trained a pig to do tricks and to be housebroken. i know i am weird.

but i actually raise goats and chickens (as extra income) and goats are far more disgusting than pigs.

if you would like to know why PM me as i will not expain this on an open thread

thankyou and God Bless

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
Why do you need Paul to confirm something God told us to do already? Sounds like you are trusting man more than God.If Paul wrote it in scripture, God said it. Unless you don't believe that scripture is the Word of God.

Paul and Peter both very clearly and expressly said that circumcision is not longer a requirement.
The passage with Titus dealt with false doctrines. Still not a difficult concept, unless you desire to be disobedient. Asserting that rabbinnic law is mandatory for Christians is false doctrine. There are numerous NT passages that attest to that, and they have been posted here by several people.

[TorahKeeper]

Circumcision is not rabbinnic law, it was spoken to Abraham by God Himself..

And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. Genesis 17:9-10.

And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal 3:29

Obedience does not provide salvation... Obedience produces blessings....

Faith produces Salvation.....

Sounds like alot of resistence to the very words of God Himself.

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
Circumcision is not rabbinnic law, it was spoken to Abraham by God Himself..
Read your bible. All the rabbinnic laws were spoken directly by God himself: Yahweh spoke to Moses and Aaron and said to them... (Lev 11)

In the NT, circumsision was clearly deemed by Peter and Paul as not being necessary for a believer.
Sounds like alot of resistence to the very words of God Himself. Sounds like the desire or one man on this board to pick and choose what parts of scripture he thinks everyone should observe. Look dude, if you want to observe rabbinnic law, that is within your scripturally guaranteed right of religious liberty. However, it is unscriptural for you to impose that same observance on others as mandatory. That is nothing short of false doctrine, not unlike the tactic of the KJVOists.

[StefanM]

Johnv,

Rabbinic laws would be the "Oral Law" not recorded in scripture (now recorded in the Mishnah, Talmud, etc). Priests and Rabbis are not synonymous terms.

The Mosaic Law does not consist of rabbinic laws/regulations. Those were in addition to the Mosaic Law.

Otherwise, I'm right with you smile.gif .

[TorahKeeper]

The very mouth of God spoke these laws that so many want to eliminate, I cannot for the life of me understand wht God's people would want to eliminate anything He said.

[StefanM]

&lt;--- Is not a Jew.

As a Gentile, I keep these suggestions:

Acts 15:20, "But we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."

[StefanM]

I'm not saying that the Law is now currently in force for the Jewish people, but I see nowhere in scripture that EVER requires Gentiles to follow Mosaic Law.

[TorahKeeper]

But we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Why did you leave out verse 21???

This is whats called the heart of the law. pollution of idols means blending in paganism, fornication is self explanitory and things strangled and from blood is kosher.

Paul was saying teach them the simple part 1st and they will learn the deeper things in time as they learn Moses (aka TORAH) every SABBATH.

Sounds like Paul wanted the people to be obedient to the Law

[StefanM]

What about 15:24, then 15:29?

[TorahKeeper]

Paul was dealing with those who were teaching that obedience produced salvation. He was against the law, he was against thei false teaching. If you are advocating that Paul was telling us to eliminate the law, then he contradicted himself and his writings need to be torn out of the bible.

[StefanM]

Then why did Paul not say just that?

[TorahKeeper]

If you read the entire chapter you will see he did say it.

[TorahKeeper]

Paul was dealing with those who were teaching that obedience produced salvation. He was against the law, he was against thei false teaching. If you are advocating that Paul was telling us to eliminate the law, then he contradicted himself and his writings need to be torn out of the bible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I need to correct a statement, I should have posted Paul was NOT against the law.

I apologize for the typing error.

[StefanM]

I'll just agree to disagree. We both are seeing our own conclusions in the same text.

[TorahKeeper]

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. vs 1

There is the teaching that Paul was refuting

[Petrel]

Except part of his method of refuting it was to tell Titus not to be circumcised, which according to your point of view is a sin. That could only be if circumcision itself was no longer commanded, but irrelevant.

Here's another:

I Corinthians 7:18-19

Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. Paul outright tells people to disobey God's Law right there according to your view. Notice that Paul says that keeping God's commands it what is important, but he says that we should not be circumcised if we are not circumcised at the time of salvation. Clearly then mandatory circumcision for all male believers is not part of God's commands to us now.

[TorahKeeper]

Paul was battling a teaching that in addition to Yeshua that one had to be circumcised. He was trying to teach that faith and faith alone produces salvation.

Paul was battling a teaching not the act that God Himself commanded.

[Petrel]

Yes, and he said that we do not have to be circumcised.

Come on, drop the other shoe. :D

[TorahKeeper]

I am not dropping a commandment spoken by the mouth of God, why would you want to? Why would you encourage others to disobey the very words spoken by God Himself?

[StefanM]

Again. . .

PAUL is discouraging circumcision.

"Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts."

1000th post for me!

[Petrel]

Well, Paul apparently did, so I'm in good company.

[TorahKeeper]

So you are saying Paul eliminated a commandment of God? What authority does Paul or anyone have to eliminate God's commandments?

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
So you are saying Paul eliminated a commandment of God? What authority does Paul or anyone have to eliminate God's commandments? Yes, Paul eliminated an OT law. What authority? He was inspired directly by God to write it in scripture. Since he had God's authority, it's as clear a scriptural mandate as though God spoke it himself. So, actually, God eliminated the OT law of circumcision. If that were not true, He would not have inspired scripture with that message.

Unless you don't believe scripture is the inspired and infallible Word of God. Is that what you're telling us?

[ August 04, 2005, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

[Petrel]

No, I'm saying God eliminated the old covenant under the Law when he brought forth the new covenant in Jesus' blood. God never intended the Law with its empty rituals to be followed forever. The Law brings about the knowledge of sin and the knowledge that we must be redeemed from death by a sacrifice. The Law forecasts Jesus' sacrifice and the new covenant that is to come. Now that the new covenant has come, the old covenant has passed away.

Go read Hebrews 10 and see if you can reconcile the continued following of the empty Law with the redemption that we have in Jesus!

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.

Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—I have come to do your will, O God.'"

First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.The passage says that the sacrifices were made over and over because they were incapable of covering our sins. If they had been capable, the sacrifices would have ceased because they would not be needed any more. Guess what--we have had our perfect sacrifice! The blood of Jesus is sufficient to cleanse forever, so no further sacrifices should be made.

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:

"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds."

Then he adds:

"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more."

And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.We have been purified, we do not need a sacrifice. Since we have been purified, we no longer need the Law pointing out our sinfulness to lead us to Christ. Why should we saddle ourselves with ceremonial uncleanness that was simply meant to point out the sinfullness of our souls when we have been made spiritually pure in Christ? Those ceremonially unclean were required to ritually wash themselves or to make a sacrifice, symbolically washing away the uncleanness. Since we are cleansed by Jesus' blood, how could we become unclean? When we start to follow the Law that forecast Jesus, we are telling Jesus that his blood is insufficient for us--we are falling away from grace and depending on works, whether we admit it or not.

Paul himself stated that Christians do not need to be circumcised and that they should not be circumcised if they are not already. He described those that demand we follow the Law as people who try to make themselves slaves of God when he wants us to be sons.

You seem to be really intent to not change your mind. Right now the idea of the need to follow ceremonial law is embedded in you so far I don't think we could dislodge it with a jackhammer. :D I'm much like that--if I am debating something, I will defend my point of view to the end. It often happens that a debate ends and that my opponent and I seem to have gotten nowhere, but with time I think back on the evidence for both sides and often modify my position. Don't stop thinking about this and reading Acts, Galatians, Romans, and especially Hebrews.

I don't anticipate adding much more to this thread because we are going over ground once again that we've been over many times before. I've said what I believe God has intended for us and the Law, and I don't think I have anything else to add.

[TorahKeeper]

Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong [thy] days upon the earth, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, for ever. Deut 4:40


O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever! Deut 5:29

That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged. Deut 6:2

Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he [is] God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations; Deut 7:9

Beware that thou forget not the LORD thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day: Deut 8:11

Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, alway. Deut 11:1

A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day: Deut 11:27

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 1 John 5:2-3

Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. Rev 22:14

Need I say more??

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
Need I say more?? You're maintaining that God lied in scripture. You've said quite enough.

[TorahKeeper]

I never said God lied, you have by saying He eliminated His commandments

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
I never said God lied, you have by saying He eliminated His commandments Scripture says He eliminated His commandments, plainly and clearly. If God wantes to eliminate one of His laws, He's allowed to. If you have a problem with it, take it up wiht Him.

You indeed said God lied when He inspired Peter and Paul to write in scripture that circumcision is no longer necessary.

[TorahKeeper]

For I [am] the LORD, I change not Mal 3:6...

I guess He didnt mean it??

God said His Laws were forever, if He eliminates them then he has changed so He cannot be God. He is either the same or He has changed.

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
I guess He didnt mean it??
You're again twisting scripture to propogate a false claim. God changing and the need for certain laws changing are two completely separate issues.
God said His Laws were forever, if He eliminates them then he has changed so He cannot be God. He is either the same or He has changed. Then you are calling Peter and Paul liars, and scripture is not the infallible and inspired Word of God. There's no way for you to back out of that.

[TorahKeeper]

Once again you are ignoring the factthe Paul and Peter were battling a false teaching. Not the practice itself. For example, there are people who believe that people are redeemed by water baptism. That is obvivously wrong but do we eliminate the practice of baptism? Of course not, the same logic applies.

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
Once again you are ignoring the factthe Paul and Peter were battling a false teaching.
Scripture doesn't say that. It discusses false teachings, but the issue of circumcision not being required is separately discussed.

[Petrel]

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
Once again you are ignoring the factthe Paul and Peter were battling a false teaching. Not the practice itself. For example, there are people who believe that people are redeemed by water baptism. That is obvivously wrong but do we eliminate the practice of baptism? Of course not, the same logic applies. Except that Paul did eliminate circumcision. . . Hmm. . . That would indicate that circumcision is no longer required.

[TorahKeeper]

If you refuse to see that Paul was battling a false teaching then I can do nothing. I can only ask that God open your eyes.

[Petrel]

I don't see how you can reconcile this position with the fact that Paul told Christians not to be circumcised. :confused:

[BobRyan]

TK quotes God -

Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong [thy] days upon the earth, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, for ever. Deut 4:40


O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever! Deut 5:29

That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged. Deut 6:2

Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he [is] God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations; Deut 7:9

Beware that thou forget not the LORD thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day: Deut 8:11

Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, alway. Deut 11:1

A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day: Deut 11:27

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 1 John 5:2-3

Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. Rev 22:14

Need I say more?? JohnV
You're maintaining that God lied in scripture. You've said quite enough. How can quoting the inspired text - be error or calling God "a liar"??

Isn't that going a bit too far?

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Petrel:
I don't see how you can reconcile this position with the fact that Paul told Christians not to be circumcised. :confused: IF we take Gal 5 to "an extreme" then it easily becomes apparent that Paul is "causing Timothy to Fall from Grace" in Acts 16:1-2.

#1. Circumcision was never required of Gentiles even in the OT. Paul argued against the "rabbinical tradition" that would ADD that as a requirement for Gentiles in the NT.

#2. Paul is never quoted as telling Jews that they can not be circumcised. In fact as TK pointed out in Acts 21:23 we see Paul going before non-Christian Priests and taking a "vow" just to SHOW conformity withIN the Jewish culture for the requirements for Jews.

BTW - what does this have to do with the title of the thread?

In Christ,

Bob

[Petrel]

He isn't talking about that post, he was referring to our ongoing discussion where TorahKeeper upholds circumcision even though I Corinthians says that Christians should not be circumcised.

[Petrel]

I think it's possible that Paul changed his mind later after Timothy was circumcised because of the growth of the pro-circumcision works group.

I don't think that Paul went to the Temple because it was required of him or anyone else, I think he went simply to avoid alienating the Jews so that he would have a chance to witness to them.

Paul said:

I Corinthians 7:18-19

Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts.We're talking about circumcision because we originally started talking about unclean meat and the Law and why meat is unclean no longer. TorahKeeper objected, so we decided to start from one simple detail that is clearly no longer required under the new covenant.

Genesis 17 demands that Gentile slaves be circumcised as well. Exodus 12:48 requires foreigners to be circumcised if they partake of the Passover.

TorahKeeper is arguing that now Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles should all obey the Law, including circumcision.

[TorahKeeper]

I am simply stating that we are to obey God's own words. No one, including Paul has the authority to eliminate any of God's Laws. If God eliminates any of His laws then He has changed and is no longer God. People can twist words if they choose, I am simply stating that we are to be obedient to God.

[yeshua4me2]

So Paul was not inspired?

why would God put the new wine of Christianity into the old wineskin of Judaism?

Just as Col 2:16 exempts Christians of the Jewish sabbath, and dietary laws, 1Cor 7:18-19 exempts us from circumcision.

remember Judaizers have major problems with their injecting the torah in christianity. History, there are no sources that say these jewish laws were practiced by the early church, and if Polycarp kept no jewish laws, then that is an excellent precedent for us. if the Apostles taught the jewish law, why is there not one single source saying so. no letters about keeping the law, no romans who knew of christians keeping the jewish laws.

sadly torah you try to impose laws handed down for the Jews (do i have to list the scriptures again) ONLY.

and Yes God does away with laws:

Deu 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.


did this law change?

thankyou and God Bless

[hillclimber]

I don't like the limitations imposed by some that desuades the drifting of dialog from the original thread title. That drifting seems a natural part of posting.

Torah Keeper seems just as his name implies, a Jew, unwilling to free himself from Mosaic law.

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
No one, including Paul has the authority to eliminate any of God's Laws.So scripture is wrong then? Peter and Paul expressly wrote IN GOD'S INFALLIBLE AND INSPIRED SCRIPTURE that circumcision is no longer mandatory. Jesus IN GOD'S INFALLIBLE AND INSPIRED SCRIPTURE did work on the Sabbath. I guess Jesus was wrong, too?

Who says the God's law can't change? The Law is from God. The Law is not God.

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Petrel:
I think it's possible that Paul changed his mind later after Timothy was circumcised because of the growth of the pro-circumcision works group.

I don't think that Paul went to the Temple because it was required of him or anyone else, I think he went simply to avoid alienating the Jews so that he would have a chance to witness to them.
Here is the text -

Acts 21
21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.
22 ""What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
23 ""Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.

25 ""But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.''

26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.
27 When the seven days were almost over, the Jews from Asia, upon seeing him in the temple, began to stir up all the crowd and laid hands on him,
In the text Luke tells us explicity "why" Paul is going through the exercise - worshipping in the temple and offering the sacrifices. It was to refute the charges.

What WERE the charges again? (The ones in the text above.)

It does not leave a lot of lattitude for re-interpreting.


In Christ,

Bob