-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christians: Are You Biblical?
- Thread starter Neo Deist
- Start date
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
It's not Catholicism...I started thinking for myself decades ago.
Of course you are not Catholic. You aren't even remotely Catholic.
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Thank God!
No but rather thank God you don't claim to be Catholic.
So who are you a minister for? Yourself?
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what you are asking, but not only did Christ clearly change certain old testament/old covenant judgments in the new testament/under the new covenant, but the judgments concerning what foods were to be eaten changed several times in the old testament alone.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
Gen 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Lev 11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
Lev 11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
From a new testament/new covenant perspective (and also as indicated in the old testament), the old judgments were appropriate for the phase of the plan being worked out at the time.
With the new covenant came new judgments -because the new covenant included God putting his spirit within many (allowing men to obey and worship God in spirit and truth -not simply the letter of the law) -and the judgments were then more spiritual than carnal.
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, 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 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Tumah
Veteran Member
I only see one commandment in the two Genesis verses. Not to eat blood of a live animal. I see that Adam was only permitted to eat fauna while Noah was permitted to eat animals as well. But neither of them were commanded to eat these things. The language of the verses are not written in a commanding language and so long as they chose not to eat, it wouldn't even be relevant to them. In contrast, Noah was prohibited from eating blood and Jews are prohibited from eating animals that don't have the appropriate signs. Notice that Adam was never prohibited from eating meat as Noah was from eating blood of a live animal.
So look at the pattern here, we see additional prohibitions being added on to later generations. We don't see additional allowances being made after a prohibition is in place.
It is also significant that there is no difference in the language used when the verse prohibits blood of a live animal to Noah, or the prohibitions of the 10 commandments.
"Only flesh in its life, its blood you shall not eat"
"You shall not kill."
I don't see any indication from the language that one commandment should be considered more significant than the other.
Not as relevant, can you think of any reason the KJV might have chosen to translate the word for "food" as "meat"?
All I see here is a reiteration of Jeremiah.
I am confused as to why you are missing the point of these verses. The passage is clearly describing the new covenant, not as a change in content but as a change in placement. Its the same laws, only whereas before they were external, on a piece of paper, the new covenant would be the same laws that would be inherently understood.
So, still the same old "do not eat pig". Only whereas before I would need someone to tell me this prohibition, in the new covenant, I would realize it intuitively.
In fact if you look at the literal translation, this is exactly what it says and I wonder why the only translation that reflects this is Young's Literal.
For your reading pleasure:
נתתי - את תורתי - בקרבם
I gave - my Torah - in their midst. Please note the bold word.
This is the literal translation. I use the past tense here, because the word נתתי is exactly the same word as in Gen. 1:29 "Behold, I have given (נתתי) to you all the..."
ועל - לבם - אכתבנה
And on - their hearts - I shall write her (Torah is a feminine word).
Compare the construction of the word "I shall write it" with the previous "I have given". Clearly, the verse is saying that the Torah that was previously given in the midst of Israel on Mt. Sinai, would under the new covenant be written directly on their hearts. And this is what the next verse explains- there will no longer be a need for teachers because the law will be intuitive for all Jews.
There is no indication anywhere in the passage that the content of the Law would change. There is no indication anywhere in the passage that the people under the covenant would change. In fact the opposite is true as when the passages speaks of "them" it also speaks of "their fathers" in reference to the Patriarchs. It also specifically mentions the two kingdoms of the Jews the "House of Israel" the "House of Judah." These are not terms that are relevant to non-Jews and there is nothing in the verse indicating that they ever will be.
This prophecy has clearly not been fulfilled yet.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Jesus made it clear that what God wills is done. He wasn't there to protect something that was impregnable, i.e. would not pass away until accomplished.
He was there to identify with that impregnable reality, AND to denounce what had been tested and proven false. He wasn't some idiot believing that everything written down and called Scripture is without doubt true.
Our Jewish members know that he did not accept everything as presented to him.
He was there to identify with that impregnable reality, AND to denounce what had been tested and proven false. He wasn't some idiot believing that everything written down and called Scripture is without doubt true.
Our Jewish members know that he did not accept everything as presented to him.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Christ did not say that nothing would ever pass from "the law" -but that it would not UNTIL IT WAS FULFILLED.
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
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.
...and then he want on to describe the changes...
Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Just as other old judgments, sacrifice had its place -but it was fulfilled -it served its purpose and now serves no purpose.
Psa 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
There is indication that the whole of what might be considered "the law" is made up of some things which will not change -and things which will change as the situation changes.
The judgment given in Eden was more prohibitive -no flesh at all. Then any flesh was allowed -then only some (and later none again).
What do you believe is the significance of the distinct words here.....?
2Ch 19:10 And what cause soever shall come to you of your brethren that dwell in their cities, between blood and blood, between law and commandment, statutes and judgments, ye shall even warn them that they trespass not against the LORD, and so wrath come upon you, and upon your brethren: this do, and ye shall not trespass.
The commandment -for example -says that we are to have no other God before God (and so to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord) -but at one time the word -which can be a situational judgment -might be to not eat flesh -then to eat it -then to only eat some.
The prophecy has not been FULLY fulfilled -but it has begun to be. Many prophecies concern things which happen step by step -over a great amount of time.
Also -while that small part does not indicate that it will apply to others -other parts do -and it is not good to take only one part alone.
Joe 2:27 And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed.
Joe 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
Joe 2:29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.
Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
There would be no need for a new covenant if absolutely nothing changed -and though that verse specifies Israel and Judah, all may be spiritual Israel.
Rom 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Rom 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:\
Rom 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
Rom 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Last edited:
Tumah
Veteran Member
You use law and judgement interchangeably here.
There is no question that the intent of the authors of the NT was to change the law. The question is by what right?
That's wholly being reinterpreted into the text. The verse is saying that G-d doesn't want sacrifices...because He doesn't want us to sin. Compare this verse with Jeremiah 7:21-28. You'll notice the passage there says that G-d didn't command sacrifices when He took them out of Egypt. This is not true as there are tons of passages describing the sacrifices that G-d commanded. But the rest of the passage explains, it wasn't sacrifices that G-d wanted but that we should listen to Him and not have to bring the sin-offerings. And the passage repeats 4 times that we didn't listen to Him. Now look at the two parts to the verse David says. G-d doesn't want sacrifices, and He dug out ears for him. That's what the verse is talking about.
Can you point me to the verse that prohibits flesh to Adam?
There is no question that there are different types of Laws. A list of "judgement" can be found in Ex. 21:1 for example. Statutes can be found in Numbers 19:1. The word you are translating as "law" is actually Torah which just means teachings. And commandments can be found sprinkled throughout, as in Ex. 27:20.
There is no place in either Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5 where the word "command" is used (as in command Israel). This word is found in other passages, so its lack here strongly suggests that you distinction has no basis. In fact the word "said" and "spoke" is used every single time.
That is playing word games. The terms of the covenant are that no one will need to be taught the Law. People need to be taught the Law. Therefore the covenant has not yet been initiated.
For some reason you only bold the first part of the verse, but not the qualifier. If G-d was pouring his spirit on everyone, then everyone should be prophesying. But the second half of the verse clearly is saying that only the Jews will. Clearly "all flesh" means of "your sons and your daughters...your old men...your young men." Context is important.
These verse are not messianic prophecies. Verse 28 is a rhetorical question. The previous verses say that the prophets and priests are all evil. So if the leaders are not teaching the right thing, then who is left? The babies? Its a chastisement.
I already explained previously that what would change is that the Torah would be written on the hearts of the Jews. There would be no need to teach it and we will finally be faithful to G-d. That is clearly what the verse is saying.
There is no such concept as "spiritual Israel" and that's why it is not found in the Tanach. Its just something the NT authors had to create so that there would be a reason for non-Jews to follow them.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Cool then.