C
Cristian_B
Guest
Nah. I’m just collecting information for a possible future argument.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
H
homoreus
Guest
I must admit I did not see that particular angle, viz., that man is made in God’s image and therefore is not considered an “animal” for the purposes of deciding whether human flesh can be eaten.Because man is made in the image of God. Would you denegrate the image of a loved one (would that be morally correct?). Does your instinct/conscience tell you that cannabilism is ok?
I always thought that human flesh was necessarily missing from the Noahide prohibitions in order for us to consume the Body and Blood of Christ.
Besides, most of us have at some point or other ingested our own blood (think: gingivitis).
R
Robbinson
Guest
Hi - thanks for the reply. I think the Eucharist is something very different - it is the blood and body of Christ (God) as divine, not as man/human. There is a flat prohibition in scripture about not consumming blood (any blood) because it is the “life”. If you think about it, this is because God gives life (man doesn’t take life for his own) and many pagen cultures encouraged drinking blood to claim “life” or powers of their victims or sacrifices. But with the Eucharist, this is life being given to us by, and at the command of, God.I must admit I did not see that particular angle, viz., that man is made in God’s image and therefore is not considered an “animal” for the purposes of deciding whether human flesh can be eaten.
I always thought that human flesh was necessarily missing from the Noahide prohibitions in order for us to consume the Body and Blood of Christ.
Besides, most of us have at some point or other ingested our own blood (think: gingivitis).
Blessings,
Brian
C
Cristian_B
Guest
Okay. Sorry for the previous.
Now, someone (if I’m not mistaken) told me previously (regarding 1 Timothy 4:4-5) that God had already declared all foods clean by His word in Romans 14. Now I’ll pay attention to these passages to clear it up.
So let’s begin with actually quoting the passage.
The chapter is about food customs that divided the Roman assembly. He talks about what to eat and not to eat and when to eat or not to eat.
The problem is first mentioned in Romans 14:1-4.*Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
Romans 14:1-4 (bold and italics mine, and I put the rest of the passage for context)
He begins by telling the Romans not to judge each other regarding their differences in opinion. Then he says that they were judging each other regarding eating meat or only vegetables. Why would this be a problem? We’ll see if we read the chapter:As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean κοινός], then for him it is unclean* κοινός].
Romans 14:14
What is important in that passage is the word for ‘unclean’, and that is: κοινός, which is transliterated as “koinos” (koy-nos’). This is the passage in Greek:οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ ὅτι οὐδὲν κοινὸν δι’ ἑαυτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τῷ λογιζομένῳ τι κοινὸν εἶναι ἐκείνῳ κοινόν.
Romans 14:14 (source)
And koinos means ‘common’ or ‘defiled’. Now let’s see another passage:The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were “unclean” κοιναῖς] that is, unwashed.
Mark 7:1-2
The hands of the disciples in Mark 1-2 were unclean, that is koinos, or ‘common’ or ‘defiled’. Also, let’s read another one:*“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure κοινός] or unclean ἀκάθαρτος].” *
Acts 10:14
As you see, Peter said that he never ate anything 'koinos’, or ‘defiled’; and he also never ate anything *’*akathartos’, and this means unclean. (κοινός=koinos)
Now, someone (if I’m not mistaken) told me previously (regarding 1 Timothy 4:4-5) that God had already declared all foods clean by His word in Romans 14. Now I’ll pay attention to these passages to clear it up.
So let’s begin with actually quoting the passage.
The chapter is about food customs that divided the Roman assembly. He talks about what to eat and not to eat and when to eat or not to eat.
The problem is first mentioned in Romans 14:1-4.*Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
Romans 14:1-4 (bold and italics mine, and I put the rest of the passage for context)
He begins by telling the Romans not to judge each other regarding their differences in opinion. Then he says that they were judging each other regarding eating meat or only vegetables. Why would this be a problem? We’ll see if we read the chapter:As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean κοινός], then for him it is unclean* κοινός].
Romans 14:14
What is important in that passage is the word for ‘unclean’, and that is: κοινός, which is transliterated as “koinos” (koy-nos’). This is the passage in Greek:οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ ὅτι οὐδὲν κοινὸν δι’ ἑαυτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τῷ λογιζομένῳ τι κοινὸν εἶναι ἐκείνῳ κοινόν.
Romans 14:14 (source)
And koinos means ‘common’ or ‘defiled’. Now let’s see another passage:The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were “unclean” κοιναῖς] that is, unwashed.
Mark 7:1-2
The hands of the disciples in Mark 1-2 were unclean, that is koinos, or ‘common’ or ‘defiled’. Also, let’s read another one:*“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure κοινός] or unclean ἀκάθαρτος].” *
Acts 10:14
As you see, Peter said that he never ate anything 'koinos’, or ‘defiled’; and he also never ate anything *’*akathartos’, and this means unclean. (κοινός=koinos)
C
Cristian_B
Guest
Let’s look at the different uses of 'koinos’ and 'akathartos’. I’ll put just a few:All the believers were together and had everything in common κοινός]. ~Acts 2:44
The multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul. Not one of them claimed that anything of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common κοινός]. ~Acts 4:32
*The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were “unclean,” κοινός] that is, unwashed. ~Mark 7:1-2
*
So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ κοινός] hands?” ~Mark 7:5
To Titus, my true son in our common κοινός] faith… ~Titus 1:4
*“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure *κοινός] *or unclean ἀκάθαρτος].” *~Acts 10:14
On the other hand, look how ‘akathartos’ is used:*But the unclean ἀκάθαρτος] spirit, when he is gone out of the man, passes through waterless places, seeking rest, and doesn’t find it. ~Matthew 12:43
For he said to him, "Come out of the man, you unclean *ἀκάθαρτος] spirit!" ~Mark 5:8
Know this for sure, that no sexually immoral person, nor unclean ἀκάθαρτος] person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and God. ~Ephesians 5:5
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean ἀκάθαρτος], but now they are holy. ~1 Corinthians 7:14
I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean ἀκάθαρτος] spirits, something like frogs… ~Revelation 16:13
*The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities *ἀκάθαρτος] of the sexual immorality of the earth. ~Revelation 17:4
As you see, ‘akathartos’ ἀκάθαρτος] is used for unclean and 'koinos’ κοινός] as common or defiled.
For the use of ceremonies, everything was to be holy, and holy means to be set apart for a specific use. If they were common, they were not holy. Peter said that he never ate any unclean or defiled animal; meaning that he never ate any unclean animal declared by the Lord and neither any clean animal that became inedible or unusable in ceremonies.
So Romans 14:14 should be read like this, because it uses the word ‘koinos’, and not’akathartos’:As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is defiled in itself. But if anyone regards something as defiled, then for him it is defiled.
Why would it be defiled? Why would the Romans see this meat this way (defiled)? There were those in the assembly considering the meat sold in the markets ceremonially defiled. Why would they? The most reasonable answer is that they thought almost all meat from the markets has been offered in sacrifice to the idols. Paul addressed a similar situation in Corinth (1 Corinthians 10:18-28). He answered the Corinthians concerns over this issue that they should eat whatever is sold in the market without raising questions of conscience about whether the meat has been offered to an idol or not. But if they knew it has been offered in sacrifice to an idol, they shouldn’t eat it for the sake of the weaker brother (1 Corinthians 10:28). What he told the Romans was very much like what he told to the Corinthians. He said nothing was defiled in itself, but it was defiled for the one that considered it as such. They shouldn’t automatically believe the meat in the markets was sacrificed to the idols. But if someone couldn’t eat in good conscience the meat (because they didn’t know whether it was sacrificed to the idols or not), that it was defiled and they shouldn’t eat it, for the sake of the weaker one. So obviously, Paul is not talking about the clean and unclean animals from Leviticus 11, but about defiled or not defiled clean animals.
The multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul. Not one of them claimed that anything of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common κοινός]. ~Acts 4:32
*The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were “unclean,” κοινός] that is, unwashed. ~Mark 7:1-2
*
So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ κοινός] hands?” ~Mark 7:5
To Titus, my true son in our common κοινός] faith… ~Titus 1:4
*“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure *κοινός] *or unclean ἀκάθαρτος].” *~Acts 10:14
On the other hand, look how ‘akathartos’ is used:*But the unclean ἀκάθαρτος] spirit, when he is gone out of the man, passes through waterless places, seeking rest, and doesn’t find it. ~Matthew 12:43
For he said to him, "Come out of the man, you unclean *ἀκάθαρτος] spirit!" ~Mark 5:8
Know this for sure, that no sexually immoral person, nor unclean ἀκάθαρτος] person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and God. ~Ephesians 5:5
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean ἀκάθαρτος], but now they are holy. ~1 Corinthians 7:14
I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean ἀκάθαρτος] spirits, something like frogs… ~Revelation 16:13
*The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities *ἀκάθαρτος] of the sexual immorality of the earth. ~Revelation 17:4
As you see, ‘akathartos’ ἀκάθαρτος] is used for unclean and 'koinos’ κοινός] as common or defiled.
For the use of ceremonies, everything was to be holy, and holy means to be set apart for a specific use. If they were common, they were not holy. Peter said that he never ate any unclean or defiled animal; meaning that he never ate any unclean animal declared by the Lord and neither any clean animal that became inedible or unusable in ceremonies.
So Romans 14:14 should be read like this, because it uses the word ‘koinos’, and not’akathartos’:As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is defiled in itself. But if anyone regards something as defiled, then for him it is defiled.
Why would it be defiled? Why would the Romans see this meat this way (defiled)? There were those in the assembly considering the meat sold in the markets ceremonially defiled. Why would they? The most reasonable answer is that they thought almost all meat from the markets has been offered in sacrifice to the idols. Paul addressed a similar situation in Corinth (1 Corinthians 10:18-28). He answered the Corinthians concerns over this issue that they should eat whatever is sold in the market without raising questions of conscience about whether the meat has been offered to an idol or not. But if they knew it has been offered in sacrifice to an idol, they shouldn’t eat it for the sake of the weaker brother (1 Corinthians 10:28). What he told the Romans was very much like what he told to the Corinthians. He said nothing was defiled in itself, but it was defiled for the one that considered it as such. They shouldn’t automatically believe the meat in the markets was sacrificed to the idols. But if someone couldn’t eat in good conscience the meat (because they didn’t know whether it was sacrificed to the idols or not), that it was defiled and they shouldn’t eat it, for the sake of the weaker one. So obviously, Paul is not talking about the clean and unclean animals from Leviticus 11, but about defiled or not defiled clean animals.
C
Cristian_B
Guest
So, are there any more passages in Scripture that says the modern Christian does not have to follow the dietary laws written in Leviticus 11 (and Deuteronomy 14) besides the ones already posted in this thread?
C
crazzeto
Guest
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=51&ch=10&l=13&f=s#xOkay, I will not debate the authority of the Catholic Church.
But I ask: why? Is there Scriptural evidence for it?
I was originally thinking to make this a thread about what is written in the Bible about the dietary laws. I am grateful for your opinion, but could you also post scriptural evidence for this claim? Thank you.
10 And being hungry, he was desirous to taste somewhat. And as they were preparing, there came upon him an ecstasy of mind.
11 And he saw the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great linen sheet let down by the four corners from heaven to the earth: 12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: Arise, Peter; kill and eat. 14 But Peter said: Far be it from me; for I never did eat any thing that is common and unclean. 15 And the voice spoke to him again the second time: That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common.
God very directly told Peter, the old dietary laws no longer apply.16 And this was done thrice; and presently the vessel was taken up into heaven.
C
Cristian_B
Guest
It is ironical that these passages (those found in Acts 10) are actually those that prove we are supposed to follow the dietary laws, and not the opposite.God very directly told Peter, the old dietary laws no longer apply.
We find Peter saying:“I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
~Acts 10:14
This just proves it. Peter never ate any unclean animals. Note that this happened after spending 3 years and 6 months with Jesus, 40 days before He ascended and another at least 3 years after His ascension, and yet he never ate unclean animals. After at least 3 years with Jesus and after at least 3 years after His ascension, looks like Peter never got the idea from Jesus that he can eat unclean animals.
We find it written:
While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision…
~Acts 10:17
Peter didn’t know what the vision was about. He was still wondering… If it was really about clean and unclean animals, then it would have been obvious. But he was wondering … which means he understood God was not speaking about clean and unclean animals.
So, if after spending so much time with Jesus, he never got an idea from Him that unclean animals are good to eat (because he said: ‘I have never eaten anything defiled or unclean’, read above), then it means Jesus actually didn’t declare all unclean animals clean.
He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.
~Acts 10:28
Peter later clearly understood what God showed Him: he was not supposed to call the Gentiles unclean because they were cleaned by Jesus’ blood. He never understood that he could eat unclean animals.
So God didn’t tell Peter anything about the dietary Laws in the vision, but about the Gentiles. He told him not to call unclean what God cleaned. God (Jesus) cleaned with His blood those who believed in Him, both Jews and Gentiles. But, according tot he Jewish religion, a Jew could not associate with a Gentile or visit Him. But Peter understood what God said: he should not call the Gentiles unclean because God cleaned them. If He was talking about clean and unclean animals, Peter wouldn’t have been wondering, for it would have been obvious. But Peter understood God was not talking about the dietary laws. Also, He says not to call unclean what He cleaned. He cleaned the Gentiles, but there is no record in the Bible whatsoever of God cleaning the unclean animals and declaring them fit to eat. Therefore, we can call unclean animals unclean because God never called them clean (good to eat).
C
crazzeto
Guest
If you enjoy reading selectivly then you could make the comments you just made Christian. Peter says “I have not eaten anything unclean” indeed. This is because Peter is a good Jew, just like Jesus was a good Jew. But God told him “what I have called clean, you will not call unclean”… And Peter’s very response is to God’s command to “Kill, eat”.
You can’t read that one verse, to the exclusion of what God is very directly telling Peter.
You can’t read that one verse, to the exclusion of what God is very directly telling Peter.
C
Cristian_B
Guest
Then why was Peter wondering about the meaning if it was so obvious? And why didn’t he share the same interpretation with us that you have? But he instead tells us that God told him not to call any Gentile unclean, and He said not a word about clean and unclean animals. God used a parable or allegory. What He called clean man should not call unclean. God called the Gentiles clean for believing in Him, and man was not supposed to call Gentiles unclean for He cleaned them. Show me where He actually calls all unclean animals clean and that we can eat them, and not in a parable that is not even speaking about animals, but people.If you enjoy reading selectivly then you could make the comments you just made Christian. Peter says “I have not eaten anything unclean” indeed. This is because Peter is a good Jew, just like Jesus was a good Jew. But God told him “what I have called clean, you will not call unclean”… And Peter’s very response is to God’s command to “Kill, eat”.
You can’t read that one verse, to the exclusion of what God is very directly telling Peter.
C
crazzeto
Guest
The same reason why most of Christ’s apsotles leave him in John 6, the Jews knew the levitical law very well. They knew very well that breaking levitical law meant being cursed, they saw the effects in terms of their kingdom being dominated.Then why was Peter wondering about the meaning if it was so obvious? And why didn’t he share the same interpretation with us that you have? But he instead tells us that God told him not to call any Gentile unclean, and He said not a word about clean and unclean animals. God used a parable or allegory. What He called clean man should not call unclean. God called the Gentiles clean for believing in Him, and man was not supposed to call Gentiles unclean for He cleaned them. Show me where He actually calls all unclean animals clean and that we can eat them, and not in a parable that is not even speaking about animals, but people.
What they didn’t fully grasp is how God was preparing us for the new covenant. How the commandments in Deuteronomy 12, that you do not drink blood because the blood is for the soul, will play later on when Christ is explaining “…my blood is true drink indeed”.
The levitical laws were designed not only for the health of the people, but also to prepare them for Christ. The dietary laws served their puropse, and after the death and resurrection of Christ they were no longer necessary. Thus, God did not keep them in place, and he uses this vision to cement this point to Peter.
C
Cristian_B
Guest
But the difference between clean and unclean was made before Mount Sinai.The same reason why most of Christ’s apsotles leave him in John 6, the Jews knew the levitical law very well. They knew very well that breaking levitical law meant being cursed, they saw the effects in terms of their kingdom being dominated.
What they didn’t fully grasp is how God was preparing us for the new covenant. How the commandments in Deuteronomy 12, that you do not drink blood because the blood is for the soul, will play later on when Christ is explaining “…my blood is true drink indeed”.
The levitical laws were designed not only for the health of the people, but also to prepare them for Christ. The dietary laws served their puropse, and after the death and resurrection of Christ they were no longer necessary. Thus, God did not keep them in place, and he uses this vision to cement this point to Peter.
And part of the previous Law was fulfilled. Explain to me how have the dietary laws been fulfilled.
So can we eat dogs, giraffes, tigers and everything else we desire?
C
crazzeto
Guest
Question 1:But the difference between clean and unclean was made before Mount Sinai.
And part of the previous Law was fulfilled. Explain to me how have the dietary laws been fulfilled.
So can we eat dogs, giraffes, tigers and everything else we desire?
Do you have any Jewish blood in you, at all, that you’re aware of?
Question 2:
Do you consider your self a saved follower of Christ?
C
Cristian_B
Guest
I don’t know. I don’t have any Jewish close relatives as far as I know. But who knows…? Maybe some hundreds of years ago some ancestor of mine married to a Jew. I can’t keep track of my family tree, but as far as I know: no.Question 1:
Do you have any Jewish blood in you, at all, that you’re aware of?
Saved? Jesus has very much to do with me yet. Being saved? I hope so.Question 2:
Do you consider your self a saved follower of Christ?
C
crazzeto
Guest
Well I’m glad to read that, but I do assume that you believe that you can be saved… That is to say, that you’re not left out to dry. You see, we Gentiles are very much like the unclean animals. To the Jews, and even to Christs very followers, they were to be left alone. Not touched, not interacted with, certainly not to be evangalized. And we can see the fruits of St. Peter’s statement “surely Sir, I have not eaten anything unclean”, he likewise never would have dreamed of visiting the centurian before that dream (particularly since this centurian could well have been involved in the Lords humiliation and death).I don’t know. I don’t have any Jewish close relatives as far as I know. But who knows…? Maybe some hundreds of years ago some ancestor of mine married to a Jew. I can’t keep track of my family tree, but as far as I know: no.
Saved? Jesus has very much to do with me yet. Being saved? I hope so.
Now what should happen shortly after St Peter’s vision?
The centurian’s messager arrives where Peter is, and asks for him to come visit his master. Because of the vision Peter attends the messager when he otherwise would have (probably rudely) dismissed him. While Peter is speaking with him, something very curious happens:Act 10:17 Now, whilst Peter was doubting within himself what the vision that he had seen should mean, behold the men who were sent from Cornelius, inquiring for Simon’s house, stood at the gate.
Act 10:18 And when they had called, they asked if Simon, who is surnamed Peter, were lodged there.
Act 10:19 And as Peter was thinking of the vision, the Spirit said to him: Behold three men seek thee.
Recognizing what has happend, Peter brings him (rather scandolously at first) into the Christian community. Thus, when before Christ the Jews were Clean and we were unclean, like the food in Peter’s vision now there is no clean or unclean.Act 10:44 While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word.
In this way, the dietary laws have been fulfilled.
C
Cristian_B
Guest
So we can eat whatever we please?In this way, the dietary laws have been fulfilled.
Also, what you said doesn’t have much support in Scriptures. The dietary laws weren’t given as an allegory or parable. Because, would God just stop them from eating all those “delicious food” so some people in the future will learn some simple lesson? Is He such a tyrant? God knows better, and He made them so we might be happy, because many of those foods are bad to eat. They are scavengers, that basically recycle everything in nature. We are what we eat. Are we supposed to eat left overs?
They were given as instructions of what can we eat. It is true that God makes a comparison. But the difference is that He cleaned the Gentiles (declared them clean) but He did not clean the animals. You have still not when me a statement by God where He declared all unclean animals clean. And in Peter’s vision He doesn’t speak about animals at all.
C
crazzeto
Guest
You can in fact, eat whatever you want. What I write had all the support in scriptures, in fact I just walked you through it. You seem to be under the mistaken belief that dietary laws had to be a parable in order to be fulfilled in Christ. Not so, all Jewish works of the Law (per Paul, you’ll also note none of these laws were mere parables) have been fulfilled in Christ. Denying this, is to deny what Christ did for us.So we can eat whatever we please?
Also, what you said doesn’t have much support in Scriptures. The dietary laws weren’t given as an allegory or parable. Because, would God just stop them from eating all those “delicious food” so some people in the future will learn some simple lesson? Is He such a tyrant? God knows better, and He made them so we might be happy, because many of those foods are bad to eat. They are scavengers, that basically recycle everything in nature. We are what we eat. Are we supposed to eat left overs?
They were given as instructions of what can we eat. It is true that God makes a comparison. But the difference is that He cleaned the Gentiles (declared them clean) but He did not clean the animals. You have still not when me a statement by God where He declared all unclean animals clean. And in Peter’s vision He doesn’t speak about animals at all.
C
Cristian_B
Guest
Define ‘works of the Law’.You can in fact, eat whatever you want. What I write had all the support in scriptures, in fact I just walked you through it. You seem to be under the mistaken belief that dietary laws had to be a parable in order to be fulfilled in Christ. Not so, all Jewish works of the Law (per Paul, you’ll also note none of these laws were mere parables) have been fulfilled in Christ. Denying this, is to deny what Christ did for us.
C
crazzeto
Guest
I was going to edit, but here you go:Define ‘works of the Law’.
The works of Levitical laws, the only laws which remain are the moral law per Christ:28 For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.
Matthew 19
Edit:16 And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting?
17 Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Galatians Ch 2
21 I cast not away the grace of God. For if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain.
C
Cristian_B
Guest
So? We are not justified by keeping the commandments. But if we are not justified by keeping the commandments, does that mean we can brake them?I was going to edit, but here you go:
The works of Levitical laws, the only laws which remain are the moral law per Christ:
Matthew 19
Edit:
Galatians Ch 2
- Status
- Not open for further replies.