What does Paul mean, when he says

[Elijah John]

Romans 14.33

..for whatever is not of faith is sin.

What does this mean? Is everything a person does during the course of a day a matter of faith? Are mundane activities "of faith"? If not, are mundane things "sin"?

[shnarkle]

Romans 14.33

..for whatever is not of faith is sin.

What does this mean? Is everything a person does during the course of a day a matter of faith? Are mundane activities "of faith"? If not, are mundane things "sin"?

The M or majority text puts Romans 16:25-27 after this verse. The food point is because these are beginners to the way of Christ, having only the rules set in Act 15 before them as they learn Moses each week in the synagogue. Paul is referring to people harassing the new converts about their diet, which does not need to be done when they are new to the faith. They will learn as they grow in the knowledge of the law. Acts 15:21, "For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagoguesevery Sabbath."

This has nothing to do with the dietary laws, but is explicitly dealing with vegetarianism (e.g. herbs"), and "esteeming" a day for special devotion to God. The dietary laws are not vegetarian. Paul allows no quarter for sin which is right in line with Christ's teachings.

We can be sure of this due to the fact that nowhere in scripture are unclean animals referred to as "food". Just because someone puts something into their mouth doesn't make it food.

Moreover, there is no prohibition against cannibalism in the New Testament. If we were to go along with this idea that we needn't concern ourselves with the dietary laws, or even go all the way as most Christians do, and claim they are completely done away with, then we must admit there can be no prohibition against the consumption of human flesh.

I am not disagreeing with you, I think. I believe the law still applies for our food. I was merely trying to show the Jerusalem ccouncil was giving rules for new converts that came from the Torah. Cannabalism is not addressed, as you say. This is perhaps because we were thought to be smart enough to know we weren't supposed to eat each other?

We are in disagreement, but don't take it personally. I understand your position perfectly. I am disagreeing with it. The argument you're presenting here spotlights the purpose of the law. It shows us what is food and what isn't. Some people don't see it that way. They aren't "smart enough to know we weren't supposed to eat each other" as well as swine, shellfish, etc. None of those things are food. There is no prohibition against eating rocks either, but here again this only shows that this wasn't a problem then.

The fact is that my example is valid, and should spotlight what the passage originally cited is claiming, i.e. that the biggest problems facing the church with regards to gentile converts was their lapsing back to their pagan ways with regards to consuming blood, fornication etc. Rather than rewrite the Mosaic law in the letter, the elders note that they are already in the synagogues on the Sabbaths hearing and learning the Mosaic law.

No Christian today should have a problem with a tribe of cannibals eating each other or their neighbors as long as they don't kill them prior to eating them. Here again, there is the problem of noting that some aspects of the Mosaic law must be adhered to while others are cherry picked from it.

My posiiton is consistent though in that I'm not cherry picking.

[shnarkle]

"Heaven opened and something descending like a great linen sheet being let down by its four corners on the earth; and in it were all sorts of four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth and birds of heaven. Then a voice said to him: Get up, Peter, slaughter* and eat! But Peter said: Not at all, Lord, because I have never eaten anything defiled and unclean. And the voice spoke again to him, the second time: Stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed. Acts 10:11-15

While pigs are not specifically defined as one of the 'four-footed animals' Peter was told to eat, it's clear the animals that were once considered unclean are now clean and to call something unclean which God has called clean is simply an insult to Jehovah.

The first problem with this analysis is in not noting that the unclean creatures in Peter's vision are explicitly being substituted for Gentiles. We know this because Peter himself gives the interpretation of his vision to the house of Cornelius. Here's what he says:

And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

This is the express interpretation of scripture, and there is no authority to then suppose it means anything other than what Peter has stated. The texts give no indication that his interpretation is false or incorrect.

The next problem is in not noting that Peter's interpretation is arrived at because he knows that symbols cannot be substituted for themselves. The unclean things are explicitly substituted for gentiles, and a symbol or sign can never represent itself. It would be like looking at a pedestrian crossing sign and suggesting that it indicates that there is a pedestrian crossing sign up ahead rather than pedestrians in a crosswalk. Hitting the sign would render a motorist guilty of manslaughter rather than destruction of public property.

He did magnify the law indeed. What did he magnify in the law? Food restrictions?

Yes, here are his own words:

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the LORD, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 2 Corinthians 6:17

Note that regardless of the fact that this being written by Paul, he explititly notes that it is said by "the lord", and this is long after Christ has died, been resurrected, and gone to heaven.

Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law? He said to him: You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this: You must love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets. (MT 22:36-40)

The greatest commandments don't diminish or negate any of the commandments. More importantly, all (not to be confused with some or none) are hanging. It is defiling to introduce filth into one's body as it is the temple of the living God, and swine, shellfish, etc. are all polluted and polluting. God refers to it as "an abomination" which explicitly means that he finds it detestable. Given that God is not a respecter of persons, it stands to reason that he would not find it detestable for some to eat garbage while condoning it in others.

To love God with one's entire being is to obey his commandments and his commandments are not greivous or a burden. They are evidence of freedom from bondage to sin.

Again, there is nothing to suggest that what isn't food to begin with is now food, and there are no New Testament citations that indicate otherwise.

[2timothy316]

"Heaven opened and something descending like a great linen sheet being let down by its four corners on the earth; and in it were all sorts of four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth and birds of heaven. Then a voice said to him: Get up, Peter, slaughter* and eat! But Peter said: Not at all, Lord, because I have never eaten anything defiled and unclean. And the voice spoke again to him, the second time: Stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed. Acts 10:11-15

While pigs are not specifically defined as one of the 'four-footed animals' Peter was told to eat, it's clear the animals that were once considered unclean are now clean and to call something unclean which God has called clean is simply an insult to Jehovah.

The first problem with this analysis is in not noting that the unclean creatures in Peter's vision are explicitly being substituted for Gentiles. We know this because Peter himself gives the interpretation of his vision to the house of Cornelius. Here's what he says:

And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

It is both a literal and symbolic. Paul did not discriminate but rather said all are under the law of the Christ. So trying to make a separation as you're doing is exactly what Paul was warning about. Saying one law is for gentiles and another for the Jews is un-scriptural. All are under the law of the Christ (Gal 6:2, 1 John 4:21) which doesn't include separate food consumption laws, sabbath laws or circumcision laws for one group or the other.

The Bible makes it clear that depending on obeying the Mosaic Law doesn't save anyone.

"All those who depend on works of law are under a curse, for it is written: Cursed is everyone who does not remain in all the things written in the scroll of the Law by doing them. Moreover, it is evident that by law no one is declared righteous with God, because the righteous one will live by reason of faith. Now the Law is not based on faith. Rather, anyone who does these things will live by means of them. Christ purchased us, releasing us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: Accursed is every man hung upon a stake. - Gal 3:10-13

Those food laws were hung on the stake with the Christ for both Jew and Gentile. Following them makes no one righteous as it clearly says the Law is not based on faith but the law of the Christ is based on faith.

[2timothy316]

Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law? He said to him: You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this: You must love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets. (MT 22:36-40)

The greatest commandments don't diminish or negate any of the commandments.

It doesn't make them equal so yes it does diminish them. This means that like in David's case, the lesser laws can be bypassed in order to keep the 2 most important laws. (1 Samuel 21:6) The Jews made the law a burden by making the law more important than the individual person. Jesus put it perfectly when he said that the Law was made for man and not the other way around. (Mark 2:27)

However, if you feel that pork is not good for you, then by all means don't eat it. There are some countries that even I probably wouldn't eat pork. Perhaps none of their meat at all. Not because of the Law of Moses but because their food safety regulations are too low or non-existent. While there maybe no specific law from God on what to eat anymore, 1 Corinthians 10:23 is clear that while something maybe permissible, that doesn't make it beneficial.

Yet to say there is still a law for you not to eat it but for a gentile it's ok, that is not scripturally supported. In Acts 15:28 we read what laws are still in place for all followers of Christ today. "For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper." - Acts 15:29. Note there are no laws that one must eat or not eat pork. The Bible has made it clear what was to be kept from out of the Mosaic Law and these things every one calling themselves Christian should fully support and follow to the best of their ability.

[shnarkle]

"Heaven opened and something descending like a great linen sheet being let down by its four corners on the earth; and in it were all sorts of four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth and birds of heaven. Then a voice said to him: Get up, Peter, slaughter* and eat! But Peter said: Not at all, Lord, because I have never eaten anything defiled and unclean. And the voice spoke again to him, the second time: Stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed. Acts 10:11-15

While pigs are not specifically defined as one of the 'four-footed animals' Peter was told to eat, it's clear the animals that were once considered unclean are now clean and to call something unclean which God has called clean is simply an insult to Jehovah.

The first problem with this analysis is in not noting that the unclean creatures in Peter's vision are explicitly being substituted for Gentiles. We know this because Peter himself gives the interpretation of his vision to the house of Cornelius. Here's what he says:

And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

It is both a literal and symbolic.

Not according to the definition of the terms themselves or the author. Again, a symbol cannot, by definition, be substituted for itself.

Paul did not discriminate but rather said all are under the law of the Christ.

No, he most certainly did make a distinction between those who are "under" the law verses those who are "outside" the law. Those who are under are judged by the law while those who are outside die outside the law.

Romans 2:12-16 12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

Saying one law is for gentiles and another for the Jews is un-scriptural.

I'm saying just the opposite. The Mosaic law itself points out that there is one law for the native born and foreign born alike. More to the point, Peter isn't being told that what is detestable to God is now cleaned, but that he is no longer to refer to Gentiles as unclean. If we were to take your argument to its logical conclusion, we could just as easily say that it is now acceptable to "Kill and eat" Gentiles as this is explicitly what he's being told.

Furthermore, eating human flesh is forbidden under the Mosaic law due to the fact that the dietary laws do not allow consumption of anything that isn't slaughtered according to the dietary laws. Murder is also prohibited, therefore if the dietary laws are now done away with, then eating human flesh is perfectly acceptable as long as the person dies of natural causes. Why? Because they're clean.

All are under the law of the Christ (Gal 6:2, 1 John 4:21) which doesn't include separate food consumption laws, sabbath laws or circumcision laws for one group or the other.

Very true! The law was made for man, not just Jews. As Christ points out: "The Sabbath was made for man". God finds it detestable to eat swine, shellfish, etc. regardless of whether one is a Jew or a Gentile. God is not a respecter of persons therefore it is disgusting to eat these things.

Paul also points out that there is much benefit in circumcision 'if one keep the law", but to those who would rather be sons of disobedience, Paul points out that their fate will be the exact same as those Jews who fell away as well.

The Bible makes it clear that depending on obeying the Mosaic Law doesn't save anyone.

So true! I never made that claim. This is a strawman argument.

"All those who depend on works of law are under a curse, for it is written: Cursed is everyone who does not remain in all the things written in the scroll of the Law by doing them. Moreover, it is evident that by law no one is declared righteous with God, because the righteous one will live by reason of faith. Now the Law is not based on faith. Rather, anyone who does these things will live by means of them. Christ purchased us, releasing us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: Accursed is every man hung upon a stake. - Gal 3:10-13

Here you're conflating what Paul distinguishes. The law is not based upon faith, it is kept by faith. Paul explicitly states that "faith establishes the law" The curse is not in keeping the law, but in transgressing it, regardless of whether one is Jew or Gentile.

Those food laws were hung on the stake with the Christ for both Jew and Gentile.

Nope. The dietary laws are not part of the "curse". They are not "agianst" us, but "for" us. This is clear from not just what Paul says, but the Old Testament itself.

Following them makes no one righteous as it clearly says the Law is not based on faith but the law of the Christ is based on faith.

Nope, you are now distinguishing what the bible equates. There is no difference between the law of Christ and the commandments of God. Christ keeps all the commandments as does Paul, Peter, James, etc. No one keeps them to establish their righteousness. They keep them because of the righteousness of Christ that is indwelling in, with, and throgh them.

Following the law that prohibits adultery makes no one righteous. Following the law that prohibits murder makes no one righteous. Following the law that prohibits theft makes no one righteous. The fact is that following all of the commandments makes no one rightoues, but it clearly does not follow that one should then ignore God's law.

Only those who love God can keep God's commandments.

You are conflating God's commandments which were chiseled into STONE, and are found INSIDE the Ark of the coveneant with the SCROLL written and placed BESIDE the Ark of the Covenant. The commandments are for our benefit while the scroll is against those who transgress those same commandments. See Deuteronomy 31:25,26 This is what Paul is referring to when he talks of those handwritten ordinances "that were against us", and "were added because of transgressions".

They can only be done away with when one becomes reborn and is a new creature in Christ. There is no further need to rely upon Christ's sacrifice to cover sin when the new creature wasn't created to sin, but to keep God's commandments.

Again, see Jeremiah

I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer. 31:33

or Ezekiel 11:9

And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
20
That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

Notice the reason for placing this new heart in the new creation? This is what allows them to keep God's commandments; the faith of Christ operating in, with, and through the new creature.

[shnarkle]

Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law? He said to him: You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this: You must love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets. (MT 22:36-40)

The greatest commandments don't diminish or negate any of the commandments.

It doesn't make them equal so yes it does diminish them.

Actually it does make them equal. Christ points out that "all" of the law "hangs", not "some" or "part". All of the law added together is equivalent to loving God and neighbor. When one refrains from committing adultery with his neighbor's wife, he loves his neighbor. The same is true for refraining from what God holds to be utterly detestable, e.g. eating swine, shellfish, etc.

This means that like in David's case, the lesser laws can be bypassed in order to keep the 2 most important laws. (1 Samuel 21:6) The Jews made the law a burden by making the law more important than the individual person. Jesus put it perfectly when he said that the Law was made for man and not the other way around. (Mark 2:27)

The law that points out that swine are not food is for his benefit. Disregarding God's law doesn't benefit anyone.

While there maybe no specific law from God on what to eat anymore,

There's no specific reference prohibiting necrophilia or bestiality in the New Testament either, and this is still looked upon by people as perfectly acceptable, if not condoned. Guess the church has no problem admitting them into their congregation as well, right?

1 Corinthians 10:23 is clear that while something maybe permissible, that doesn't make it beneficial.

So true, but irrelevant in this case as I'm not pointing out what God permits, but what he abhors as detestable and not permitted.

Yet to say there is still a law for you not to eat it but for a gentile it's ok, that is not scripturally supported.

I'm not making that claim in the first place.

In Acts 15:28 we read what laws are still in place for all followers of Christ today. "For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper." - Acts 15:29. Note there are no laws that one must eat or not eat pork.

Note that there are no prohibitions against bestiality or necrophilia either.

The Bible has made it clear what was to be kept from out of the Mosaic Law and these things every one calling themselves Christian should fully support and follow to the best of their ability.

Perhpas you missed what the elders already pointed out earlier in that same chapter:

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

You probably caught that part, but the reason why is then presented in the next verse:

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Yes, there it is for all the church to see. The church is going into the synagogues on the Sabbath learning to keep the law of Moses.

So we see that there's no point in rewriting the Mosaic law as they're already in the synagogues on the Sabbath learning all of it; not part, not some, but "all".

[tam]

Peace to you brian,

Romans 14.33

..for whatever is not of faith is sin.

What does this mean? Is everything a person does during the course of a day a matter of faith? Are mundane activities "of faith"? If not, are mundane things "sin"?

The M or majority text puts Romans 16:25-27 after this verse. The food point is because these are beginners to the way of Christ, having only the rules set in Act 15 before them as they learn Moses each week in the synagogue. Paul is referring to people harassing the new converts about their diet, which does not need to be done when they are new to the faith. They will learn as they grow in the knowledge of the law. Acts 15:21, "For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagoguesevery Sabbath."

If Paul expected the gentiles to eventually come around to accepting dietary restrictions (from the old covenant law), why would Paul have said that it was the person of the weaker faith who restricted what they ate?

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One persons faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone elses servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.


Paul states that all food is clean in the same chapter:

I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord [Jesus], that nothing is unclean in itself. (verse 14)

All food is clean... (verse 20)



We are not under the law of Moses (which was part of the old covenant, which has passed away, as you know). We are under Christ, and the law of the new covenant (the law that is from the beginning, the law that is written upon the heart) is love.





Peace again to you and to your household,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[2timothy316]

Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law? He said to him: You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this: You must love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets. (MT 22:36-40)

The greatest commandments don't diminish or negate any of the commandments.

It doesn't make them equal so yes it does diminish them.

Actually it does make them equal.

The question was, 'which law was the greatest'. Jesus gave two. The rest of the law hangs on those two laws. That means those two laws are the greatest as without them there would be nothing to hang the rest. This is not rocket science. All laws in the Mosaic law are not equal other wise Jesus would have simply said all of them but he did not. The question was meant to be a trap, hoping Jesus would make himself look guilty for healing people on the sabbath. It didn't work, at it appears you're trying to set the same trap and it will not work either.

Quote:
The Bible makes it clear that depending on obeying the Mosaic Law doesn't save anyone.


So true! I never made that claim. This is a strawman argument.

But you implied it by saying that all laws are equal. Jesus said that loving God and neighbor are the most important laws to keep. Yet if you say not eating pork is just as important as Jesus giving his life because he loves his Father and God then you're implying that the law is a savior.

I noticed you didn't address my point about David. When he ate the sacred bread, which only priest were allowed to eat. Yet David ate the showbread and violated the law. He and men ate the showbread. The showbread commandment was bypassed at the expense 'love your God and neighbor'. At no time can a person bypass the commandment 'love Jehovah your God'. All other commandments serve that commandment and are less than that commandment. To make the laws equal is the reason the Jews failed to follow it and turned it into a burdensome mess. Even making the sabbath burdensome, trying to make it seem like healing someone or even bringing a person back to life was wrong to do on the sabbath. Since even the sabbath gives way to 'love your neighbor' then your statement all laws are equal simply cannot stand.

And now you're trying to keep these burdens on food. Yet that was not what the apostles decreed was important to keep from the law. Which Acts 15:19-21 was another point you didn't address. You also didn't address Paul himself writing "Christ purchased us, releasing us from the curse of the Law." and that Jesus had "erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake."

The old law code is no longer the covenant between God and all mankind. We are all under the law of the Christ and other than blood, all other food restrictions are principle based. There is not one law for one group vs another as Paul said that the law for the Jews was nailed to the stake with Jesus. If the law can be nailed to the stake and yet 'love Jehovah and neighbor' remain, then the other laws are clearly less.

[shnarkle]

If Paul expected the gentiles to eventually come around to accepting dietary restrictions (from the old covenant law), why would Paul have said that it was the person of the weaker faith who restricted what they ate?

If you were to look at the context, it isn't dealing with the dietary laws at all, but "food" offered to idols. You keep forgetting that the bible doesn't define things like swine, shellfish, etc. as food in the first place. In point of fact, when beef, goat, or sheep is slaughtered and begins to rot, it is rotten or 'unclean' food. Your logic is inconsistent on this fact as I am sure you would never consider eating rotten food. But this is exactly what the Old Testament is referring to.

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One persons faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone elses servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

Here is yet another example of applying a text which is explicitly dealing with vegetarianism to the dietary laws. This has nothing to do with the dietary laws. Please be so kind as to show where the dietary laws give any indication that one can only eat vegetables.

Paul states that all food is clean in the same chapter:

Sure, all food is clean, but anything and everything one puts into their mouths isn't food. People put cigars into their mouths, but that's not food, and the bible doesn't define swine or shellfish as food to begin with, so you assertions are without any biblical suppport. You're simply assuming that pork is food when it isn't; at least not according to the bible.

I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord [Jesus], that nothing is unclean in itself. (verse 14)

So you seem to be claiming that anything can be put into your mouth? This is precisely what drug addicts and homosexuals claim with this same passage, and their claims are just as legitimate as yours because they're using the exact same logic as you are.

All food is clean... (verse 20)

And yet Paul never once made any suggestion that pork or shellfish is food.

We are not under the law of Moses (which was part of the old covenant, which has passed away, as you know).

Right, which means we needn't keep any of God's commandments, right?

We are under Christ, and the law of the new covenant (the law that is from the beginning, the law that is written upon the heart) is love.

Right, and loving what God loves means hating what God hates, and God absolutely detests anyone who places filthy polluted animals into their mouth. God is not a respecter of persons so we can safely conclude that only those God couldn't care less about can do as they please (Romans chapter 1).

[shnarkle]

All laws in the Mosaic law are not equal other wise Jesus would have simply said all of them but he did not.

He plainly pointed out that anyone who teaches anyone to disobey "the least of my commandments will be least in the kingdom". In point of fact, Jesus couldn't have been suggesting that it is okay to teach disobedience, right? The fact is that there is no "least" commandment, nor is there a "least" in the kingdom unless you prefer to see God creating a caste system through disobedience. Those who teach disobedience do not enter into the kingdom.

But you implied it by saying that all laws are equal.

I pointed out that the entire Mosaic covenant is equivalent to the two greatest articulated by Christ, and that subtracting one from the equation renders it off balance. You can't love your neighbor when you're committing adultery with his wife. By the same token, one can't love God when by trampling on his Sabbath and profaning it. It was created for man's benefit, and trampling on it shows that one has no love for God's gifts.

Jesus said that loving God and neighbor are the most important laws to keep. Yet if you say not eating pork is just as important as Jesus giving his life because he loves his Father and God then you're implying that the law is a savior.

I'm not making that claim. I'm not comparing the commandments that were given for man's benefit with the law "that was against us", "law that was added because of transgressions" which is explicitly referring to the sacrificial system which Christ did away with through his crucifixion. You're conflating the "curse" or penalty of the law with the obligation of the law. You're also assuming that one who keeps the law is under the law which is the exact opposite of what Paul and Christ are preaching.

I noticed you didn't address my point about David. When he ate the sacred bread, which only priest were allowed to eat. Yet David ate the showbread and violated the law.

You don't seem to understand how the law works. The law doesn't prescribe heartlessness, so your claim is without merit.

He and men ate the showbread. The showbread commandment was bypassed at the expense 'love your God and neighbor'.

And yet that is not a violation of the law. Love your neighbor is not a violation of the law.

At no time can a person bypass the commandment 'love Jehovah your God'. All other commandments serve that commandment and are less than that commandment.

So profaning God's name is acceptable because one already loves God? How does one love God and profane his name? I'm sure you would claim that if one loves God, then they will not profane his name, right? So why make laws based upon exceptions to the rule? This is effectively what you're claiming makes sense. God's laws are not based upon exceptions to the rules God has already given for our expressed benefit.

To make the laws equal is the reason the Jews failed to follow it and turned it into a burdensome mess.

No, the law became a burden because they were attempting to keep it through their own will and effort. This is explicitly what is going on in the Old Testament and it is explicitly explained by Paul in Romans chapter 9. If one claims to keep God's law because they chose to then they are necessarily under the law unless of course their free will and effort have rendered them able to keep God's law perfectly, their going to continue to sin which necessarily places them "under the law", and the only way to get out from under that is the sacrificial system which pointed to Christ. This is why Paul, as a sinner claimed that he was still "under the law to Christ". He must rely upon Christ's sacrifice to cover his sin because he is still under the law. Only those who "walk after the Spirit no longer fulfill the lust of the flesh" and are no longer under the law.

Even making the sabbath burdensome, trying to make it seem like healing someone or even bringing a person back to life was wrong to do on the sabbath.

And yet, Christ, Paul, Peter, James, John, and the entire New Testament Church continues to keep the Sabbath; not as a burden but as the joyous gift it is for their benefit from God. Not only do they continue to keep the Sabbath, but the Feast days as well. Please explain how keeping God's gifts is a burden. Better yet please explain what Ezekiel means when God tells him to tell those who think God puts burdens on his people that they are the burden of God. Christ didn't come to do away with God's law, but to trim the fat of the traditions that had grown up around it. That was what was a burden, not the commandments themselves.

Since even the sabbath gives way to 'love your neighbor' then your statement all laws are equal simply cannot stand.

How does this do away with the Sabbath? The law stipulates that one must return their enemies ox or ass when it gets loose (aka "love your enemy as yourself"), but let's say that your friend's ox or ass gets loose, and inadvertently kills someone. The law stipulates that the animal be stoned to death, but this will render the animal's meat worthless to eat or to sell. Should you lie to allow the destitute owner of the animal to feed his family, or allow the animal to be stoned to death, and become food for the vultures and wolves? while his family starves?

If you lie, then by your own logic the commandment forbidding bearing false witness is now done away with, right?

If so, then we are "free" to lie. If not, then your argument is inconsistent. Why?

What you're doing is creating a law by using an exception to God's law as a new law to keep while doing away with God's law. This is explicitly condemned in the bible. You are adding laws and traditions which are rendering God's commandments null and void. Christ himself explicitly points out this is wrong.

And now you're trying to keep these burdens on food.

No, I'm not. It isn't a burden. The dietary laws are given by God and God points out that he does not place burdens on people. What you're saying is no different than claiming that being faithful to your spouse is a burden, or refraining from murder is a burden. It is only a burden to those who prefer sin to God's commandments.

Yet that was not what the apostles decreed was important to keep from the law. Which Acts 15:19-21 was another point you didn't address.

I most certainly did address it, and I refuted it with the more in depth reference found in Acts 15:20,21 which you have yet to address.

I addressed it in post 16 Here it is again:

Quote:
In Acts 15:28 we read what laws are still in place for all followers of Christ today. "For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper." - Acts 15:29. Note there are no laws that one must eat or not eat pork.


Note that there are no prohibitions against bestiality or necrophilia either.

Quote:
The Bible has made it clear what was to be kept from out of the Mosaic Law and these things every one calling themselves Christian should fully support and follow to the best of their ability.


Perhpas you missed what the elders already pointed out earlier in that same chapter:

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


You probably caught that part, but the reason why is then presented in the next verse:
Quote:
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.


Yes, there it is for all the church to see. The church is going into the synagogues on the Sabbath learning to keep the law of Moses.

So we see that there's no point in rewriting the Mosaic law as they're already in the synagogues on the Sabbath learning all of it; not part, not some, but "all".

You also didn't address Paul himself writing "Christ purchased us, releasing us from the curse of the Law." and that Jesus had "erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake."

That is an explicit reference to Deuteronomy 31:25,26 The curse of the law or the law that was against us is NOT the commandments. They are for our benefit. Christ came to do away with the sacrificial system, not the commandments.

The old law code is no longer the covenant between God and all mankind. We are all under the law of the Christ and other than blood, all other food restrictions are principle based. There is not one law for one group vs another as Paul said that the law for the Jews was nailed to the stake with Jesus. If the law can be nailed to the stake and yet 'love Jehovah and neighbor' remain, then the other laws are clearly less.

You're conflating the law that was "for" us (e.g. "The Sabbath was made FOR man..") with the law that was "against" us. Not all prepositions are created alike, and those that are "for" are not the same as those that are "against" us.

Please note that the commandments that are placed "INSIDE" the Ark of the Covenenat, carved into STONE are not the SCROLL that is placed BESIDE the Ark of the Covenant. What is INSIDE is for our benefit while what is placed OUTSIDE is "against us". This is explicitly what the texts state. Please explain how you can come to just the opposite conclusion?

I am using capitals not to "yell", but to point out what is being distinguished here. I don't yet know how to place words in bold print yet.