Dietary Laws

[JonC]

That 'New' Covenant was in existence even before the earth was created, and is called the "everlasting Covenant," "covenant of ... life and peace," &c. There is no question about this, as I already cited:

Wait.... this is completely wrong.

The New Covenant did not exist until Jesus' death on the cross.

For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.


For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,

The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing,which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.


(This in Jeremiah looking forward to the New Covenant) -

Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.

 

[GentleGospeller]

No... you are not actually repeating Scripture.

Yes, I am, and my responses demonstrate that. They are my witnesses, even as is the Holy Ghost and the whole of the heavenly host involved (onlooking).

For example, you quote Peter refusing to eat what God told him to eat as evidence we should not eat unclean animals.

Peter says, that in his example and manner of life, as living as a Christian, he never ate that which is "common" or "unclean", and I cited the verses:

- Act_10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

- Act_11:8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.

Acts, recorded by Luke, referring to Peter's own testimony, as a Christian, in the Christian dispensation of the New & Everlasting Covenant, never had the idea that it was ok to eat the "unclean". Thus what I said, is indeed repeating what the scripture said.

But you ignore God telling Peter to eat and God telling Peter He had made them clean.

No, I did not "ignore" any such thing. I even quoted both places, and do so again:

- Act_10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

- Act_11:9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

That which is quoted, is not ignored, but stated. You keep referring to natural creatures which are designated "unclean", "abomination" by God as being cleansed by God in these texts (Acts 10-11). No such thing is therein stated except by yourself. The text is not referring to natural creatures, but are being used in a symbolic vision, to speak of mankind (as stated by the Holy Ghost to Peter), and more specifically Gentiles (unclean) (and Jews (common) who associate with them (unclean)), not the lesser creatures.

- Act_10:28 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.

That is the plainness of speech (2 Cor. 3:12) of which the text uses, so that none may be confused, or doubting (as Simon had been) about the visions meaning. God interpreted the meaning (Gen. 40:8) already in the text (Isa. 28:10,13), not mankind (such as yourself, 2 Pet. 1:20).

You keep referring to natural creatures, then is it also a natural washing / cleansing that makes the vision's creatures clean as well? You are presently making the same mistake as the disciples did in regards spiritual / symbolic things. Consider the many places wherein the disciples did this, as you are doing this:

• Jhn. 1:19-25
  • Elijah would physically come down from Heaven (Mal. 4:5 KJB).
    • John baptist as Elijah’s successor (Mat. 11:14, 17:10-13; Mar. 9:11-13; Luk. 1:17 KJB).

• Jhn. 2:19-22
  • Destroy this temple; the Jews say, “Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?”
    • Jesus was referring to the Temple of His (Jesus’) body, not the physical structure of stone.
• Jhn. 3:1-21
  • Born again; Nicodemus says, “How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?”
  • Jesus means, “be born of water and of the Spirit” and “born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”.

• Jhn. 4:7-15
  • Water of life; Woman says, “Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?”
    • Faith in Jesus, “But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.”

• Jhn. 4:31-34
  • Jesus says, “I have meat to eat that ye know not of.”, and disciples say, “Hath any man brought him ought to eat?”
    • The “meat to eat” and “water to drink” was doing the will of His Father, and believing.
• Jhn. 5:6-7
  • Jesus says, “Wilt thou be made whole?”, and the crippled man says, “Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool ...”
    • Jesus was referring to being healed in faith in Christ / Messiah, and being whole not just in body, but forgiven of sins, and free in mind.
• Jhn. 6:50-58
  • Jesus said, “eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood”, and the Jews said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
    • Jesus was referring to believing on the Messiah / Christ and living by His words sent from the Father, as He Himself lived by every word from the Father.
• Jhn. 7:33-36
  • Jesus said, “Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come.”, the Jews said, “Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?” Later they even attribute the saying to suicide (Jhn. 8:22 KJB).
    • Jesus was referring to his later Ascension to the 3rd Heaven, and that they could not enter there, having rejected Him as the Messiah / Christ, nor could they even understand the teachings of Heaven because they did not believe.

 

[GentleGospeller]

• Jhn. 7:37-39
  • Jesus said, “If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink,” but He was not speaking of natural water.
    • Jesus was referring to the Holy Spirit.

• Jhn. 8:21-22
  • Jesus repeats Jhn. 7:33-36.
    • Jesus was referring to Heaven (3rd).
• Jhn. 8:26-29
  • Jesus says, “he that sent me ...”, and the Jews are confused, thinking maybe John Baptist, &c.
    • Jesus is referring to being sent from Heaven by His Father, demonstrating who He is.
• Jhn. 8:31-38
  • Jesus says, “the truth shall make you free,” and the Jews say, “We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?”
    • Jesus was referring to freedom from sin (transgression of God’s law; Rom. 3:19-20, 7:7,14; Jam. 1:22-25, 2:8-13; 1 Jhn. 3:4 KJB)
• Jhn. 8:39-47
  • Jesus says, “Ye do the deeds of your father.”, and the Jews say, “We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.”
    • Jesus was referring not to their natural or physical connection, or descendancy, from Abraham’s natural bloodline, but their spiritual lineage or descent from satan’s way.
• Jhn. 8:56-58
  • Jesus claims Abraham saw Jesus’s day, and the Jews question Jesus about His physical human age.
    • Jesus was referring to His pre-existence as the eternal Son of the Father, and having spoken with Abraham so long ago, and revealing that through Abraham the Messiah would come and he believed (Gen. 22:18; Heb. 11:8-19 KJB) though the present company of Jews did not.
• Jhn. 9:39-41
  • Jesus healed the blind man (physically & spiritually), and He says that those who claim to be able to see, and yet reject Jesus, were blind, and the Jews ask if they were blind.
    • Jesus was not referring to physical blindness, but to spiritual blindness, and the darkness of sin that mankind walked in (in unbelief) without Christ Jesus.
• Jhn. 10:1-21
  • Jesus gives the parable of the sheep and the door, and the people do not understand the meaning.
    • Jesus was not referring to a natural sheep or door, but using natural things to explain Himself, the true Shepherd & Door by which people follow and enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
• Jhn. 11:11-14
  • Jesus says Lazarus is asleep, and the Disciples think Lazarus will recover from his illness by taking natural rest.
    • Jesus is referring to the sleep of the first death.
• Jhn. 11:23-26
  • Jesus says Lazarus will rise, and Martha thinks it is at the last day.
    • Jesus is the resurrection & life, and all who believe in him shall never die; & raises him.
• Jhn. 13:4-20
  • Jesus, as the part of a lowly servant, washes the Disciples feet, and Peter at first refuses and later over-extends.
    • Jesus explains that Peter will understand later, that it was a symbol of heart cleansing, and humility for the service to one another.
• Jhn. 13:27-30
  • Jesus tells Judas to go and do what he had planned to do, and the Disciples think Jesus is telling him to go buy stuff for the feast for Judas held the money bag.
    • Jesus allows Judas to betray Him, since it was what Judas had already planned earlier (Mat. 26:16; Mar. 14:11; Luk. 22:4 KJB)
• Jhn. 13:36-38
  • Jesus tells Peter that he cannot follow where Jesus is going at that time, and Peter says that he would follow wherever Jesus went that night.
    • Jesus was referring to the sacrifice of the Cross of Calvary, and that Peter could not then (due to his unconverted condition) follow that example, but afterward, when he was converted, would do so.
• Jhn. 14:1-7
  • Jesus tells the Disciples that he is leaving them and that they know how to follow Him there. The Disciples say they do not know where Jesus is going or how to get there.
    • Jesus is not referring to a physical location on earth, or a map to get there, but referring to Heaven above, and how to live the life on earth to obtain it, by follow Jesus’ example.
• Jhn. 14:8-14
  • Jesus speaks about the Father, and the Disciples ask to see the Father.
    • Jesus was referring to how he lived life on earth after the Father’s example in Heaven, and that is how they know and have seen the character of the Father in the Person of His Son.
• Jhn. 14:15-31
  • Jesus tells the Disciples that He is leaving them, and yet going to remain with them, and they do not understand.
    • Jesus was referring to leaving in His later Ascension, and yet being with them by the Holy Spirit (His representative on earth) who would always be with them, and in that way be with them wherever they were.
• Jhn. 16:16-24
  • A repeat of the previous example.
    • The same thing as the moments before.
• Jhn. 18:10-11
  • Jesus had earlier mentioned of selling things and buying a sword, and the Disciples thought Jesus meant a natural sword (weapon) (Luk. 22:38 KJB). Simon Peter later uses his own fish-knife to ‘defend’ with.
    • Jesus tells the mistaken Disciples ‘enough’ (stop, desist, cease, no more talking), and meant for them to obtain the words of God, the sword of the spirit (Eph. 6:17; Heb. 4:12 KJB), and later tells Simon Peter to put away the physical weapon.
• Jhn. 18:33-36
  • Jesus claimed Kingship, and many thought He meant to take the physical Kingdom and conquer all rebellion and the Romans. The Jews even used that idea to try to get Him into trouble with Pilate and Herod.
    • Jesus is truly King of all, but stated that His kingdom was not yet at that time on earth, but that He was spiritually the King of a Kingdom of Heaven, righteousness.
• Jhn. 19:25-27
  • Jesus says to John to behold Mary as his mother, and for Mary to behold John as her son.
    • Jesus was not referring to physical relationships, or natural blood-ties, but as of tender care for His earthly mother who was about to lose Jesus, and so He in love told her to take care of the young Disciple John, and for John to take care of her, who had no other children, and was about to lose Jesus. Symbolism of a church and its children of believers.
• Jhn. 19:28-30
  • Jesus said, “I thirst.” Vinegar given.
    • Jesus refers to Psalms, faith & righteousness.
• Mat. 16:5-12
  • Jesus says to beware of leaven.
    • Jesus was referring to hypocrisy.

 

[GentleGospeller]

You quote that Able offered the best of his animals and its fat,

Yes, Abel offered the firstlings (firstfruits). Already responded to.

but add this means we should not eat fat.

I did not add this. This is simply scripture explaining scripture, from one place to another, as I stated that the Bible is a wholeness. The "fat" belonged to God, and Abel was not to eat it, but it was to be burned upon the altar of God, as is later re-described for such in Moses' and after them (Psalms, &c.) , days.

- Gen_4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

Do you see the word "offering"?

- Exo_23:18 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the fat of my sacrifice remain until the morning.
- Exo_29:13 And thou shalt take all the fat that covereth the inwards, and the caul that is above the liver, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, and burn them upon the altar.

- Psa_37:20 But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.

You act as if one place in scripture cannot shed light on previous places in scripture by your responses to me. Then consider:

- Exo_8:21 Else, if thou wilt not let my people go, behold, I will send swarms of flies upon thee, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thy houses: and the houses of the Egyptians shall be full of swarms of flies, and also the ground whereon they are.

What swarms are these? In the Hebrew it does not say. How then shall the translators know it was "flies" to add in the italics? Simple, other places in scripture shed light:

- Psa_78:45 He sent divers sorts of flies among them, which devoured them; and frogs, which destroyed them.
- Psa_105:31 He spake, and there came divers sorts of flies, and lice in all their coasts.

It is no different from that to Abel's actions, and regulations given by God and what should be done. It always is from foundational principle to the more explained in detail after (Isa. 28:10,13).

You ignore

No, I do not. I plainly quoted the verses on several occasions. That is not ignoring them, that is quoting them so that they are indeed noticed by all.

that God gave all animals

Incorrect. The text is specific.

- Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

The "Every", and "all" is contextual to the equal (Eze. 18:25.29, 33:17,20) parallel definition in the text. God gave to Noah to eat of the clean, even as God had originally given of mankind of the "green herb" which is differing from the "thorns and thistles" (vile plants) which arose because of sin. God had dietary regulations even upon the plant life, making specific distinctions between that which God sanctified (set aside for holy use) as "food" (tree of life), and that which never received sanctification (setting aside for holy use), being the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". It is in this manner that God gives to Noah the creatures, and as such some were already "clean" (useable for sacrifice, and allowed to be eaten (with a cost)) and others "not clean", and never allowed to be as a sacrifice acceptable to God, or eaten.

You are simply reading the text incorrectly and without making the connection to the previous events and verses as God is showing in the text itself.

to Noah because God told him not to partake of the animals blood.

That is because such was already not allowed to be eaten from Gen. 1:29-30, 3:15,21. The principle is already present in those texts, and merely expounded in greater detail later.

You use Scripture

That is a "filthy" accusation. I do no such thing.

, but quoting out of context is not repeating Sripture.

Again, this is simply an accusation by yourself towards me, and you have not demonstrated in any place, in any of your responses that I have ever (would ever, or even desire) done so. That which is presented without evidence may be safely ignored.

I have demonstrated in numerous places that I am repeating scripture, and have painstakingly taken the time and effort to show you, and all, again and again.

I am not opposed to people maintaining whatever diet they desire.

Oh really? You should, since it is unlawful for a man to eat the flesh of man. So, are you really going to try to defend your last sentence? You really should not, for I have other examples I can give which show your statement to be in error, and more than this, foolish (unwise).

But the passages you insist

The passages themselves are insisting. I make no basis of reply upon 'me-ism'.

apply to us today

I already provided that text:

- Mat_5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I could provide several more (Jhn. 14:15; Exo. 20:6, &c.), as I also quoted in Acts 10-11, 15, Revelation; &c.

say more than what Israel from Moses to the Cross are permitted to eat.

I have already shown that the Israelites were to be a light to the Gentiles (Deu. 4; Act. 13:46-47; &c.), even as Jesus exampled (texts already provided).

I am sure you know this.

I know what I know by the scriptures and Holy Ghost.

You, for example, would never wear a cotton-wool blend

Non-sequitur. You obviously do not have understanding of why the rule was given in the first place. It also has nothing to do with this thread's topic. It is another distraction.

, or any fabric made of teo different materials, as this was given with the "dietary rules".

No, as I said, the dietary regulations existed long before Moses. The regulations on 'wool' (creature) & 'linen' (plant) were given in Genesis 3 also, and from that foundation more is explained later.

 

[GentleGospeller]

You would never eat new grain before the second day of Passover.

Again, non-sequitur. Another distraction. Passover (and its festal dating and events) was not given until Exo. 12. It had pre-existence in the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, Gen. 3:15,21. There is a keeping to be done of those very things by Christians, under the New Covenant, after the new and living way. The rules didn't disappear. They went from natural to spiritual (even as Paul states in 1 Cor. 5:8 & Co; 2:16-17; as per 1 Cor. 15:46). So, I do keep Passover one way (as given by God), but not in another (as taken away by God). The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the LORD.

You make sure a tree has provided fruit for at least 3 years before eating any of the fruit

Again, non-sequitur. How many distractions will you attempt in a single thread? The laws of harvesting are still valid also. Their violation is one of the very reasons that the land that was once fertile is now dying, rotting, wasting away. God, loving, sends warnings:

- Hos 4:1 Hear the word of the LORD, ye children of Israel: for the LORD hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land.
- Hos 4:2 By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood.
- Hos 4:3 Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away.
- Hos 4:4 Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another: for thy people are as they that strive with the priest.

Did you think a 'dust bowl' happened in the states without reason? Do you think that the water table in California is dwindling without a cause? Do you think that the sahara swallows more and more land is without good reason?

, you make sure not to be clean shaven, etc.

Again, non-sequitur. Do you understand the regulation about hair and connection to pagan priests and idolatry since the time of Babylon?

I know you do this because you place yourself under the Law (and the Law canmot be divided).

All of it is still valid, as I have quoted to you, and shown you. It simply changes under New Covenant dispensation in how it is applied. By the way, the "law" can indeed be divided, between moral (spiritual) and ritual (carnal). Both Jesus and Paul in the NT demonstrate this. Do I really need to 'flesh' this out on the 'spiritual' things of God for you (even though this thread is not about that subject at all)?

As for instance:

Moses' law (handwriting of ordinances)

• Called “the law of Moses” (Jos. 23:6; Luk. 2:22; 1 Cor. 9:9, &c)
• Spoken by God through Moses (Exo. 35:4; Num. 30:1; Lev. 10:11; Deu. 4:14,45; Heb. 9:19; &c.)
• Called [carnal] “ordinances” (Num. 9:12; 2 Chr. 33:8; Eze. 43:11,18, 44:5, 45:14, 46:14; Col. 2:14; Eph. 2:15; Heb. 9:1,10)
• Written by Moses at God’s command (Exo. 17:14, 24:4, 34:27; Deu. 31:9; Neh. 8:14; Mar. 10:4, 12:19; Luk. 20:28; Jhn. 1:45, 5:46)
• In A Book (Exo. 17:14; Deu. 31:24; 2 Chr. 34:14, 35:12; Ezr. 6:18; Neh. 13:1; Mar. 12:26; Heb. 9:19)
• Many decrees to do with worldly sanctuary (Lev. 18:5, 20:22; Deu. 4:1,5; Psa. 18:22; Mal. 4:4)
• Placed “in the side [outside] of the ark” (Deu. 31:26, see also 1 Kin. 8:9)
• Abolished in Jesus’ flesh at Calvary / Cross (Eph. 2:15), “till the seed should come”, “time of reformation” (Gal. 3:19; Heb. 9:10)
• “Added [to an already existing Law] because of transgressions [sin]” (Gal. 3:19)
• More given (Exo. 30:22; Lev. 4:1)
• Changeable [Type to Antitype] (Act. 6:14; Heb. 7:12,18)
• “Against us”, “contrary to us” (Deu. 4:26, 30:19, 31:19,21,26,38; Jos. 24:22; Col. 2:14)
• Identifies [Points to] the Saviour [Jesus] (Gen. 3:15,21; 22:8 Exo. 12:3-11; Jhn. 1:29,36; Rev. 13:8)
• Not to be judged by (Col. 2:16-17)
• “carnal”, “worldly” (Col. 2:8,20; Heb. 7:16, 9:1,10)
• Their faulty promises were a “yoke”, “of bondage” (Act. 15:10,24; Gal. 5:1; Heb. 8:7-9; Exo. 19:8)
• “made nothing” “perfect” (Heb. 7:19, 9:9, 10:1; Gal. 3:3)
• “ceased”, “abolished”, “remaineth no more sacrifice for sin” (Dan. 9:27; Eph. 2:15; Heb. 10:26)
• A “whole law” which cannot justify for salvation (Gal. 5:1-3)

God’s Law (Ten Commandments)

• Called “the ten commandments” of the LORD [JEHOVAH] (Exo. 34:28; Deu. 4:13, 10:4)
• Spoken directly by God without Moses (Exo. 20:22; Deu. 4:12-13,15; Neh. 9:13)
• Called “the royal [kingly] law” (Jam. 2:8-11, see also Num. 23:21; Psa. 44:4, 47:7, 68:24, 74:12, 84:3, 95:3, 145:1; Isa. 44:6; Jer. 10:10; Dan. 2:37; 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14, 19:16)
• Written directly by God, “finger”, “[Holy] Spirit” (Exo. 31:18, 32:16, 34:1,28; Deu. 9:10; Mat. 12:28; Luk. 11:20)
• Originally on 2 Tables of The Sapphire Stone [later on regular stone and later on the two tables of the Heart / mind] (Exo. 24:10,12, 31:18, 34:1,4,28; Deu. 10:3-4; Num. 15:38-39; Jer. 31:31-34; Eze. 1:25-28, 10:1, 11:19-20, 36:26-27; Heb. 8:8-13, 10:16; 2 Cor. 3:3,6)
• “the ten commandments” (Exo. 34:28; Deu. 4:13, 10:4), the “whole” duty of [the] man [all in Adam the first and last] (Ecc. 12:13-14; Psa. 119:96); heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 8:2, 9:11; Rev. 11:19, 15:5)
• Placed “into [inside] the ark” (Exo. 40:20; Deu. 5:1-5)
• “will I not break … nor alter”, “settled for ever”, “everlasting”, “founded them for ever”, “endureth for ever” (Deu. 4:2; Psa. 89:34, 111:7-8, 119:89,142,152,160,172; Mat. 5:17; Rev. 11:19, 15:5, a transcript of God’s character – Exo. 33:12-23, 34:1-9, 20:5-7)
• Existed at the beginning (Gen. 4:7, 16:5, 5:16, 18:20, 19:15, 20:9, 31:36, 39:9, 44:16; Exo. 9:27,34, 10:16-17; Job 1:5,22, 7:20, 8:4, 22:15-17, 24:19, 31:33, 33:27; Isa. 3:9; Lam. 4:6; Eze. 28:12-19; Rom. 2:12, 3:23, 5:12-21; 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14; 2 Pet. 2:4; Jud. 1:6)
• Self-contained, Complete, “added no more” (Deu. 5:22)
• Cannot be altered, “sure” (Psa. 89:34, 111:7-8), unchangeable as God (Exo. 33:12-23, 34:1-9, 20:5-7; Psa. 102:12,25-27; Mal. 3:6; Heb. 1:10-12, 13:8)
• “not grievous” (1 Jhn. 5:3), “made for [the] man” (Mar. 2:27), “good” (Rom. 7:12,16; 1 Tim. 1:8), the law is not “against the promises” (Gal. 3:21), but the Ten Commandments are in fact all promises of God in the New and Everlasting Covenant (Eph. 6:2; Heb. 8:6, &c)
• Identifies [Points out] sin (Rom. 3:20, 7:7,14; Jam. 2:10-11; 1 Jhn. 3:4)
• Judges all (Ecc. 12:13-14; Rom. 7:7,14; Jam. 2:10-13; 1 Jhn. 3:4)
• “spiritual” (Rom. 7:14,22), “spirit” (Jhn. 6:63; Exo. 31:18, 32:16, 34:1,28; Deu. 9:10; Mat. 12:28; Luk. 11:20)
• “walk at liberty”, “law of liberty”, “free” (Psa. 119:45; Jam. 1:25, 2:12; Isa. 58:6,13; Jhn. 8:32-36; Exo. 20:2; Deu. 5:6; Mat. 5:19; Rom. 6:22, 8:2: Gal. 4:26,31, 5:1: 1 Pet. 2:16)
• Is “perfect” (Exo. 32:16; Deu. 32:4; 2 Sam. 22:31; Psa. 18:30, 19:7, 40:8; Rom. 2:12; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Jam. 1:25)
• “magnified” by Jesus / Calvary (Isa. 42:21; Mat. 5:1-7:29; Rom. 3:31)
• A “whole duty” to do through faith & Holy Spirit (Ecc. 12:13-14; Luk. 17:10; Eph. 2:8-10; Tit. 3:4-8) - or see a quick image

1. Image - https://ia804504.us.archive.org/2/i...202306/Colossians 2vs14-16 Nutshell Image.png
2. Image - https://ia600100.us.archive.org/21/items/bible-prophecy-gods-law-ceremonial-law_202301/Bible%20-%20Prophecy%20-%20God's%20Law%20%26%20Ceremonial%20Law.jpeg
3. Text [page 78] - The 7th Day The Sabbath - The Rest Of His Eternal Story (by Aaron Earnest) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
4. Text [Single page] - Single Page (Dual Sided) Charts - Prophecy Print Outs : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[GentleGospeller]

I am not sure how you make sure the fruit you eat is from a tree that has borne fruit for at least 3 years

Well, that is simple. I grow the tree. I have planted several. As for others trees, I am not held responsible for their violation. This topic, is again, non-sequitur. Mere distraction. If you want to discuss farming practice from the Bible that can be done, but this really is not the thread for it. I will recommend to you the following - Gardening Ian Jones The New Bionomic Grower : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

I have others as well, as needful.

, or the timing of the grain you eat.... but I am sure you found a way

No, I do not "[find] a way". It is "the way" (Jhn. 14:6) that has found me. I was lost, now I am found. God's ways are the only ways to live. God even allows satan to continue a bit longer to demonstrate that other ways simply come to vanity (beginning in vanity, are vanity).

because if not not only would you be a hypocrite

No, you simply have a great misunderstanding about a great many things. Perhaps this video may help you (semi-related, about what stays, goes, &c., just as an example on another topic, can be re-lated to this topic) - Sticks & Stones Do You Stone The Sabbath Breaker by brother Aaron Earnest : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

but you would also perish under the Law (you don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Law apply and which do not).

I am not under the 'old covenant', neither 'under the law' as a Christian.

- Rom_6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
- Rom_6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Sin is defined in Rom. 7:7,14; Jam. 2:8-13; 1 Jhn. 3:4.

No, as I said, it all applies, and remains intact (Mat. 5:18), but in the ratified New Covenant dispensation there are distinctions to be be made, as for instance, see page 62 - The 7th Day The Sabbath - The Rest Of His Eternal Story (by Aaron Earnest) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

So "I" am not the one 'picking and choosing'. The Holy Ghost, in the scripture, is showing the distinctions to be made. I even provided several examples to you in this reply (as "Passover" to be kept a way and not kept a way, &c.).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

At one time it was a rich language (I studied literature for some time at university, particularly British and Irish literature). I know the richness of the language.

But I also know that much of that richness has been lost to antiquity (not only in Europe, it is lost here as well).

I was surprised that you were unable to cope with idioms and turns of phrases, even if just introduced to a saying you with which you had no previous experience.

In retrospect I should not have been surprised. I made an assumption based on your age. Americans of your generation retained a level of literacy that seems to be lost on you. In many ways Europe had led the decline with the Americas following. But we are pretty much on the same level today.

There is a very simple point here, which I will make and finish.
I had never heard of the expression 'sinfully wrong' and certainly not in the way you say you meant it, which apparently means 'not sinfully wrong.'
What I have heard of is advertizements for cream cakes etc. describing them as 'sinfully wicked,' and diet plans telling their prospective customers that they can have so many 'sins' each week.
This is all very well for worldly folk; they joke and make light of sin, not realising that it is their sin that will send them to hell on the Last Day if not atoned for (e.g. Rev. 20:12). But Christian people should not be flippant about sin, lest those who hear them should think that sin is not serious. This is especially important for those of us who are involved in church leadership. I believe you have said that you are not, for which I'm sure many of us give hearty thanks, but you are, alas, in charge of this forum and it behoves you to set an example - here, if nowhere else. If sin is not discussed in a Christian forum with appropriate gravity, why should anyone take us seriously?

I can spell "British" (the modern standard). My phone seems to prefer "Brittish" (an obsolete soelling used in the 18th century).

English spelling began to be standardized after the publication of Samuel Johnson's dictionary in 1755. If your 'phone is as old as that I suggest you buy a new one.

 

[GentleGospeller]

Wait.... this is completely wrong.

No. It is not. I even cited several places in direct evidence.

The New Covenant did not exist until Jesus' death on the cross.
...

No, the New Covenant was not ratified by the blood of Jesus until Calvary. That does not mean it was not known, and not in existence far before that time. The New Covenant is that which was made amongst the Godhead between the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost as witness. It has to exist before it can be ratified. Simple order of operation / function / logic.

Even as the 'old covenant' was in existence before it was ratified by blood.

I could cite numerous commentators on this subject, beyond the scriptures already provided you, and the example just given as well, as for instance:

John Gill on Heb. 8:13:
- "... he hath made the first old; this naturally follows from hence; if the second is new, the first must be old; which is called so, not on account of its date and duration; for the covenant of grace itself is older than this mode of administration of it, and the manifestation of that to the patriarchs was before this covenant, and so was the covenant of works before it; but on the account of its faultiness and deficiency, its weakness, and unprofitableness, and especially its being antiquated, and made to give way to another. ..." - https://www.studylight.org/commentary/hebrews/8-13.html

Fortner's commentary on Heb. 8:13:
- "... This covenant of grace is not called “a new covenant” because it is newly made, or of a new origin. We know that because this covenant is elsewhere called “the everlasting covenant.” It is a covenant made with Christ our covenant Surety before the foundation of the world (Hebrews 13:20; Revelation 13:8). ..." - https://www.studylight.org/commentary/hebrews/8-13.html

 

[JonC]

No. It is not. I even cited several places in direct evidence.


No, the New Covenant was not ratified by the blood of Jesus until Calvary. That does not mean it was not known, and not in existence far before that time.

Yes, it means it was not in existence. God said "I am going to do something new".

It was known to God, but not to those who lived before it was made (it remained a mystery, even the angels longed to see what was to come). The New Covenant is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the Law.

My post was Scripture (I did not provide the reference because I did not see a need).

Christ did not die to ratify the New Covenant.

You have some very weird (and unorthodox) views. @Martin Marprelate would get a kick of me saying that (he finds my views weird, although he cannot say unorthodox....but to be fair, many othordox views are wrong, and weird).

To what denomination do you consider yourself to be a part?

 

[JonC]

There is a very simple point here, which I will make and finish.
I had never heard of the expression 'sinfully wrong' and certainly not in the way you say you meant it, which apparently means 'not sinfully wrong.'

It simply means "wrong". I cannot help that you have never heard the expression. I am sure you know of idioms I have never encountered as well.

I looked up "British idioms". If you were to say "Bob's your uncle" I may try to correct you (I do not have an uncle named Bob). But if you said it was an expression meaning "it's as simple as that" I would acceot your use even though I never encountered the expression.

If I took your method I would argue that the words are plain. You were saying that some man named Bob was one of my parent's sibling. "Bob" is a name. "Uncle" is a specific relationship.

But I am familiar with how these expressions work. "Bob's your uncle" makes absolutely no sense to me as an expression. I have no idea how that phrase ended up a thing. Yet, knowing that there are countless expressions I have not encountered I would not be so arrogant as to argue against your use of it.

"Sinfully wrong", "as wrong as sin on Sunday", "dead wrong"...these are expressions just emphasizing one is wrong (very wrong).

It is not minimizing sin, just like "speak of the devil" is not minimizing the adversary. It is an expression.

 

[Mike B]

Does choosing to ignore a question (several in fact) equate to not having an answer to said question? Does choosing to ignore a question equate to not having knowledge sufficient to reply to said question? Choosing to ignore, is simply that, of choosing to not take notice of said question, or to respond to it. Did you perhaps think, at any point, I might have reasons for not answering them?

If this was the old TV show "What's my Line", I would suggest you are a politician, as you can talk
all day and not really say anything of substance, nor would you answer a direct question. Your reason
for not answering my question is because you can't..there is no clear Scripture to support your belief.

When in Israel I very much enjoyed visiting the Shawarma stands...roasted vertical stacks of hodu (turkey)
with a big chunk of lamb fat on top, melting and dripping down into the meat. Absolutely delicious, and
there's always a bunch of different toppings you can add. It is generally considered as kosher, providing the
animals were properly slaughtered. Sadly, I don't believe you will never enjoy this most tasty of treats.

I will trouble you no more with my questions.

 

[GentleGospeller]

Yes, it means it was not in existence.

No, again, incorrect. It was in existence as just shown.

God said "I am going to do something new".

You will have to be more specific than that. Are you referring to Isa. 42:9, 43:19, 48:6; Jer. 31:31, or something else?

It was known to God

You are referring to the New Covenant or the gospel?

- 1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
- 1Pe_1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

The "New Covenant', as stated existed not merely in God's mind. It is seen from Genesis 3:15,21 and through out the Bible. It is even mentioned in Exo. 19, called there, "my [God's] covenant" (Exo. 19:5), right alongside the 'old covenant' (the agreement between God and the peoples, wherein they said to God's words, "All that the LORD hath spoken we will do." (Exo. 19:8), which were 'faulty promises' (Heb. 8:6-8) of the people, unlike God's promises in "his [God's] covenant" (Deu. 4:13), being the "everlasting covenant", "of life and peace", &c.

, but not to those who lived before it was made (it remained a mystery, even the angels longed to see what was to come).

You are conflating the Gospel with the New Covenant itself. You have a conflation error here.

The New Covenant is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the Law.

I already cited the verses (at least twice now) about what the New Covenant is (in very short, "I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them" The eternal Ten Commandments, the law of God's own perfect character transcribed, His perfect promises). I will simply refer you back to those two replies.

- Dietary Laws
- Dietary Laws

My post was Scripture (I did not provide the reference because I did not see a need).

You do not see a contradiction in what you said? "My post was Scripture", and then in the same context say, "I did not provide the reference" (ie. scripture).

Christ did not die to ratify the New Covenant.

Yes, Jesus had to shed his blood to ratify the New (Everlasting) Covenant. From 'old' (existing in Exo. 19)

- Exo_24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

to "New":

- Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
- Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
- Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
- Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
- Heb 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

- Heb_12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

These texts even further demonstrate that the New Covenant had to already be in existence (as the old had to be), but would only be ratified by the blood of Jesus Christ in His death (as the old was ratified by the blood of the sacrifices in Moses' day, Exo .24), and so come into effect.

You have some very weird (and unorthodox) views.

Perhaps to you, but not to the scriptures. Some say I am unorthodox, while others say I am heterodox, and others say I am in prefect agreement with scripture. It is not what people say that matters, but scripture is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice (Isa. 8:20).

@Martin Marprelate would get a kick of me saying that (he finds my views weird, although he cannot say unorthodox....but to be fair, many othordox views are wrong, and weird).

As, I have been trying to show, I have done much study on this subject from Gen. to Rev. and have tried to see if persons might want to consider such things. What I have found instead, is all manner of discussion on differing subjects.

None of the following NT texts will ever declare that the events of Calvary released any of mankind from the dietary / health laws of God, which were from the beginning. Please, do not take my word for it, go and prayerfully read them.

- Mat. 15; Mar. 7; Act. 10-11 & 15. Rom. 14; Gal. 3-4; Col. 2:13-17; 1 Tim. 4:1-5.

To what denomination do you consider yourself to be a part?

What does it matter for the present discussion (though it should be obvious) (asking for such, normally results in ad hominem, or poisoning the well, or some other red herring or other fallacy)? Either the Bible (Isa. 8:20) says a thing or it does not say a thing; either it sanctions a thing or it does not sanction a thing. My position is not, 'we' said so, but scripture says so, and I cite it. Doctrine is not discovered by democratic vote, but determined by God.

- Joh_7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

 

[GentleGospeller]

If this was the old TV show "What's my Line", I would suggest you are a politician, as you can talk
all day and not really say anything of substance, nor would you answer a direct question. Your reason
for not answering my question is because you can't..there is no clear Scripture to support your belief.

When in Israel I very much enjoyed visiting the Shawarma stands...roasted vertical stacks of hodu (turkey)
with a big chunk of lamb fat on top, melting and dripping down into the meat. Absolutely delicious, and
there's always a bunch of different toppings you can add. It is generally considered as kosher, providing the
animals were properly slaughtered. Sadly, I don't believe you will never enjoy this most tasty of treats.

I will trouble you no more with my questions.

As you will, though I did provide you answers from scriprure (- Dietary Laws ) in my reply to your first accusation. You may not like those answers, but you were answered, none-the-less. Did you even consider the linked materials (Pro. 18:13,17)?

'kosher' is not actually scriptural, but is rabbinic.

There is more to the diet / health laws than just the 'clean' & 'unclean" (not clean, abominable) divisions, known long before Moses (Gen. 7:2,8, 8:20): God stated, that a person (not merely Hebrew / Israelite / Jew, see Exo. 12:19,38,48-49, 20:10; Num. 11:4; Lev. 17:12,15, 18:26; Deu. 5:14; &c.) could also not eat any:

• [01] "blood": Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17, 7:26-27,33, 17:12,14, 19:26; Deu. 12:16,23-25,27, 15:23; 1 Sam. 14:32-34; Eze. 33:25; Act. 15:20,29, 21:25
• [02] "fat" (animal): Gen. 4:4; Lev. 3:17, 7:23-25,31,33; 1 Sam. 2:16-17
• [03] "any thing that dieth of itself" (too old or sick / diseased): Lev. 7:24, 17:15, 22:8; Deu. 14:21; Eze. 4:14, 44:31
• [04] "that which is torn with beasts" (injured): Exo. 22:31; Lev. 7:24,15, 22:8; Eze. 44:31
• [05] "strangled": Act. 15:20,29, 21:25
• [06] "not seethe a kid in his mother's milk": Exo. 23:19, 34:26; Deu. 14:21
• [07] of the Passover it is stated, "Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire": Exo. 12:9
• [08] "the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire": Lev. 7:19
• [09] of the sacrifices, "of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire.", "And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.": Lev. 7:17-18
• [10] "raw" (uncooked (see "roast with fire"), unboiled (see "sodden")): Exo. 12:9; Deu. 16:7; 1 Sam. 2:13-15,17

even if such things were from a 'clean' animal. That pretty much eliminates most grocery store 'flesh' products.

No alcohol, either (Pro. 20:1, 31:3-7) - The Two Wines - The Blessed & The Cursed : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Mankind fell into sin through misuse / violation of diet. Redemption, in Christ Jesus, restores mankind in diet as well. Pretty simple chiasm. Eden on earth lost to Eden restored on earth.