Is the Law God gave through Moses still in effect today???

[Drew]

Now, I will again say...the deeper and most important lesson here is spiritually taking in the foul meat of false doctrine[/b]

Jesus cannot be read that way. He says that nothing that goes into the stomach and then comes out of the other end defiles

Does bad doctrine enter the stomach? No. Food enters the stomach.

Does bad doctrine leave the body and go into the toilet? No. It is "processed" food that goes into the toilet.

 

[Drew]

I don't know....what does that mean to you? If you believe He created "abominable things" for us to consume then be happy. Or, if you believe those same "abominable things" suddenly became wholesome and wonderful then...that's okay too.[/b]

There is another problem with this line of thinking. If these foods are inherently abominable - if they are really bad for us - why does wait thousands of years from creation to Moses at Mount Sinai to let us in on this?

These foods are actually not abominable in their inner constitution. True, God did order the Jews not to eat them and that if they did, they would become defiled. But, for reasons I cannot get into right now, God forbad the Jews from eating these things to set the Jew apart as a unique people. Same with many other aspects of Torah. And God did this as part of the plan to have Israel play a role in solving the Adamic sin problem. That problem was solved at Calvary, so the need for Torah to mark the Jew from the Gentile no longer exists.

 

[whirlwind]

Now, I will again say...the deeper and most important lesson here is spiritually taking in the foul meat of false doctrine[/b]

Jesus cannot be read that way. He says that nothing that goes into the stomach and then comes out of the other end defiles

Does bad doctrine enter the stomach? No. Food enters the stomach.

Does bad doctrine leave the body and go into the toilet? No. It is "processed" food that goes into the toilet.

:yes Of course it should be read that way. False doctrine taken in DOES DEFILE someone if it is taken to heart. It causes spiritual death. If you listen to false teaching but don't take it to heart then....it is flushed out of your system into the proper receptacle.

Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover.

We can drink or eat false doctrine, from the serpent, but we are not harmed if we know truth.

 

[Drew]

Now, I will again say...the deeper and most important lesson here is spiritually taking in the foul meat of false doctrine [/b]

I would like to make another comment about this. Let's suppose that this is Jesus' main lesson. Well, given the fact that the conversation clearly starts with a focus on handwashing in relation to food purity, and since Jesus makes reference to things that go into the stomach and then into the toilet, He would be deliberately obscure if the real point was about "taking in bad doctrine". Doctrine does not enter the stomach, it enter the mind (or possibly the "heart"). And it certainly does not go down the toilet. Both the context to this point, as well as the allusion to digestive tract, suggest that he must be talking about food - remember, it is only at verse 20 that He even begins to address the "spiritual" issues that really are related to defilement.

But let's suppose that Jesus is indeed using an analogy to the body here and is talking about "taking in the foul meat of false doctrine". Well, what does Jesus say about what happens to such foul meat? He says that it " goes into his stomach, and is eliminated. But if the bad doctrine is eliminated, how, exactly, is that a problem? If Jesus is really talking about taking on false doctrine and how that is a problem, He should be saying that it remains inside the person. But, of course, He does not.

I suggest also, that you are implicitly making the following argument:

1. Jesus’ argument about the behaviours that actually defile – thought of theft, murder, adultery – is a spiritual argument.

2. These thoughts come “out†of the man in the form of immoral actions.

3. Therefore the argument about what goes into the man must effecitively be a spiritual argument as well.

4. Therefore, Jesus is not talking about bad foods going into the body, he is talking about “bad doctrine†going in.

I have already pointed out the problem with this – the bad doctrine is represented as leaving the body, leaving the man undamaged by it.

But there is something else that needs to be said. There is no necessity that just because the argument about the “stuff that leaves the man†is indeed a spiritual argument, that the argument about stuff going in must be a spiritual one as well.

It could easily be the case, and I suggest that it is clear that this indeed is the case, that Jesus is undermining a belief that physical things defile (that is, food) with an argument that, by contrast, it is spiritual things that defile. In other words, the argument that “since one part of the argument is clearly spiritual, everything in the argument needs o be understood spiritually†is demonstrably incorrect.

 

[whirlwind]

I don't know....what does that mean to you? If you believe He created "abominable things" for us to consume then be happy. Or, if you believe those same "abominable things" suddenly became wholesome and wonderful then...that's okay too.[/b]

There is another problem with this line of thinking. If these foods are inherently abominable - if they are really bad for us - why does wait thousands of years from creation to Moses at Mount Sinai to let us in on this?

God told Adam what was "good for food." Because the written word wasn't until the time of Moses doesn't mean the spoken word wasn't carried forward. :yes

These foods are actually not abominable in their inner constitution. True, God did order the Jews not to eat them and that if they did, they would become defiled. But, for reasons I cannot get into right now, God forbad the Jews from eating these things to set the Jew apart as a unique people. Same with many other aspects of Torah. And God did this as part of the plan to have Israel play a role in solving the Adamic sin problem. That problem was solved at Calvary, so the need for Torah to mark the Jew from the Gentile no longer exists.

God did separate Israel from others. They/we are His "peculiar people." However, Israel doesn't become the Gentile but rather...the Gentile becomes Israel. The Torah isn't erased...it is fulfilled. The blood ordinances are fulfilled in Christ. And, He is our Sabbath, He is our Passover, circumcision is now of the heart. Fulfilled...not done away with.

 

[Drew]

:yes Of course it should be read that way. False doctrine taken in DOES DEFILE someone if it is taken to heart. It causes spiritual death. If you listen to false teaching but don't take it to heart then....it is flushed out of your system into the proper receptacle.

But you are not being true to what Jesus is saying - He says the "stuff that goes into the person" does not enter the heart:

because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?

Are you still claiming that when Jesus is referring to things entering the body, He is talking about "false doctrine". If so, how do deny that Jesus says such things do not enter the heart? I politely suggest you are adding to what Jesus says when you talk about "if you listen to false teaching but take it to heart then....it is flushed out of your system into the proper receptacle". Jesus makes no such qualifying statement.

 

[Sparkey]

In retrospect we may have been better served by opening a new thread specifically about "clean and unclean", yes? The OP asked a general question: "Is the Law God gave through Moses still in effect?"

From here there has been some digression, and of all the saints here I am most to blame. The question wasn't actually focused on eating worms at all. In an effort to regain the focus of the thread we should first turn our attention to what "The Law" is. Many of us have pointed out that our understanding of this must include the "Jewish Mind" that was present at the time of the statement and this is proper Hermeneutics also. The "conversation" between God and Man has always been contextually focused to Man's current Light of Understanding. This is not a limit to our Lord though - as He is marvelously able to speak to the "current generation" while also addressing the heart issues of all mankind.

Rather than changing the topic back though (because so much good work has been put into it) we might still be served by attempting to continue it's course as the Spirit of God guides us. I am not averse to either course. Some here have asked, "Why ignore the copious amounts of information that I have posted?" Others continue to misinterpret (in their good heart) the thrust of the messages spoken. The topic of "Clean and Unclean" and understanding the distinctions may well help BUT...

"Clean and Unclean" was not a Law given through Moses. Read Gen 7:1-5. While doing so and examing the conversation between Noah and God - remember also that the Torah is the first five books of the bible. Those who advocate the "tossing out" of the Torah are saying that Genesis and Exodus must be "thrown out" right along with Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The word Torah actually means "teaching," "doctrine," or "instruction" --- the common English word "law" gives us wrong impression.

[*Edit] I misspoke myself - the root-word from which the word Torah is based means, "teaching," "doctrine," or "instruction". We all need to be careful when Teaching. Pardon the slip of the tongue (errrr.... fingers... errrr... my mistake).

I'll go back and read recent posts now and attempt to respond to the issues as the Spirit leads me. In the meantime allow me to put you in mind of the Scripture (although I know you already know): All Scripture is profitable for (how does that go again?) The words "All Scripture" --- could that mean that even the words of our Logos through his 'sent ones' (Apostles) are Torah? Seems that way to me. Is Jesus truly the Word of God? I believe he is.

~Sparrow

PS - We are not able to do things in an orderly fashion - as this is not a fully moderated board (nor would we want it to be). If 30 questions and responses arrive onto the thread including "you've ignored me when I posted such-and-such..." Please understand that I am being prayerful as I speak. It takes time. Also, I'll be happy to respond to PM's (after praying) to any urgent questions that any may have. The answer might be, "I dunno" but I will pray and will answer. Praying Studying Thinking Agreeing :amen

 

[Drew]

God told Adam what was "good for food." Because the written word wasn't until the time of Moses doesn't mean the spoken word wasn't carried forward. :yes

This argument does not work. If, as you suggest, the "word about what was good was carried forward, then why the need to tell the Jews not to eat pork?]

[God did separate Israel from others. They/we are His "peculiar people." However, Israel doesn't become the Gentile but rather...the Gentile becomes Israel. The Torah isn't erased...it is fulfilled. The blood ordinances are fulfilled in Christ. And, He is our Sabbath, He is our Passover, circumcision is now of the heart. Fulfilled...not done away with.

I would be interested to know if you really think we should be stoning adulterers and making sacrifices in the temple, etc. That is where you go if you say the Torah is still in force. And since you say that we Gentiles are subsumed into Israel, you seem to be saying that all Christians should be obeying the dictates of the Torah - stoning adulterers, sacrificing goats in the temple, staying away from lepers, etc. Do you really believe this?"

I trust you realize that it is perfectly coherent to say that the Torah was fulfilled in a manner such that it is no longer in force. If I get on a plane from Montreal to London, I stop travelling when the plane reaches its destination. The purpose of the plane trip has been fulfilled. Does this mean that I insist on staying on the plane, and not "abolishing" or "putting an end to" my travel? Of course not.

Torah is used by God to achieve a certain goal. And that goal was achieved at Calvary. Torah has done its job and can it be retired.

 

[Sparkey]

There is another problem with this line of thinking. If these foods are inherently abominable - if they are really bad for us - why does wait thousands of years from creation to Moses at Mount Sinai to let us in on this?

Drew? Please read my last post. ;)

~Sparrow

 

[Drew]

Those who advocate the "tossing out" of the Torah are saying that Genesis and Exodus must be "thrown out" right along with Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The word Torah actually means "teaching," "doctrine," or "instruction" --- the common English word "law" gives us wrong impression.

We are not saying anything like this.

To say that the "Torah has been abolished or retired" means that the rules and practices given to Moses at Sinai - the "613 items" that are generally considered to consitituted that Law - are no longer in force. Regardless of "dictionary definitions", Paul uses the word Torah to refer specifically to the written law - the 613 rules, regulations, and practices set forth in Exodus, Leviticus, etc., etc.

No one is saying that we should tear out the first 5 books of the Bible. Torah is part of the Christian story and knowing about it is essential.

 

[follower of Christ]

Get my point? The argument about Paul's statements in Acts is moot. I shouldn't have brought up Peter but since I did - I know in my heart that three times Peter was told, "Rise, kill and eat." and I also know that three times he said, "Not so, Lord..." That is directly stated in scripture. The conclusion that God "cleaned" worms and the other meats that were on the sheet can only be drawn from Peter (not from you or from me). He was the only person to whom the vision was given. What was his conclusion? He said to Cornelius that God has shown him. What? What did Peter (who was uniquely qualified to interpret the vision) say he was shown? Did he say it would be okay for him to sit down to porkchops and other meats? Is that what Peter said? Sorry for this type of (it's almost patronizing) argument but it's difficult to sound to the outside what I feel in the inside - I know, I'll smile as I type. Hope it comes through.

Peter said that God has shown him that he was not to consider Gentiles koinos or akathartos. God said that what He katharizÃ…Â (cleansed / purified / purged) thou shall not call koinoÃ…Â (common / defiled / polluted / unclean).

This has been clearly and extensively dealt with already. The fact that the overall intent of the vision is to get Peter to see Gentiles as clean does not mean that, as part of the God choses to make this clear to Peter, Peter is not also told that all foods are clean.

In fact, as already argued in more detail, the declaration that all foods are clean is the perfect means to make it clear to Peter that the Gentiles are clean. This is because the Jew would consider that the Gentile is unclean precisely because the Gentile would eat foods that the Jew would consider unclean for a human to eat.

Again, dear reader, do not be fooled by bad logic. Do not fall for this argument:

1. God’s message to Peter was that Gentile are clean;
2. Therefore, God could not have been declaring all foods to be clean

Do I really need to explain this? Well, consider this analogy. Suppose that Canadians think that Americans are unclean because they drink Budweiser beer. Now suppose that somebody wanted to convince a certain Canadian – let’s call him Drew – that Americans are actually clean.

The ideal way to do this is to make the case that Budweiser beer does not defile the person who drinks. Has the point been made that Americans are clean? Clearly it has. How was the point made? By asserting that the very thing deemed to defile Americans is not inherently defiling. Note that there is no “rule†that, in the course of making the point that Americans are clean, the case cannot also be made that Budweiser beer is clean.

In fact, the declaration that Budweiser beer is clean is the heart of the argument that Canadians should see Americans as clean. I trust the analogy is clear.

Great post....well worth repeating...

 

[follower of Christ]

My faith is very strong. I have faith that His written Word, in a very detailed manner, told me what was good for my flesh body. I believe Him.

really ?
Im sorry...where again does it say 'pork is BAD for you' ?
Where does it SAY 'FISH is GOOD for you'
I think I missed those parts.
Are you sure you arent making it up ?

Isaiah 65:4 Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels;

I don't know....what does that mean to you? If you believe He created "abominable things" for us to consume then be happy. Or, if you believe those same "abominable things" suddenly became wholesome and wonderful then...that's okay too. Now, I will again say...the deeper and most important lesson here is spiritually taking in the foul meat of false doctrine but the foods on the do-not-eat list were not created to be received. They are scavengers. Do they taste terrific? Yes...they do....did.

it says 'abominable'...ie 'unclean'...

abominable
H6292
פּגּל פּגּוּל
piggûl piggûl
pig-gool', pig-gool'
From an unused root meaning to stink; properly fetid, that is, (figuratively) unclean (ceremonially): - abominable (-tion, thing).


H6292
פּגּל / פּגּוּל
piggûl
BDB Definition:
1) foul thing, refuse
1a) unclean sacrificial flesh (only use)

Do you have any REAL evidence ?



.

 

[whirlwind]

:yes Of course it should be read that way. False doctrine taken in DOES DEFILE someone if it is taken to heart. It causes spiritual death. If you listen to false teaching but don't take it to heart then....it is flushed out of your system into the proper receptacle.

But you are not being true to what Jesus is saying - He says the "stuff that goes into the person" does not enter the heart:

because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?

Food, even unclean foods, do not defile someone. They don't make one unholy but you must answer...are they good for you? Are they healthy? My answer is no. Several posts ago I asked...what if all the problems with aging, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, arthritis, osteoporosis, alzheimers, failing hearing and eyesight, cancer, etc. weren't a normal way of life? What if God didn't create us that way but through years of eating those foods we love to eat (and I certainly have) that it was that causing our health problems? After all...He warned us. They don't defile us for He gave us salvation but it is our choice to eat them...or not.

Are you still claiming that when Jesus is referring to things entering the body, He is talking about "false doctrine". If so, how do deny that Jesus says such things do not enter the heart? I politely suggest you are adding to what Jesus says when you talk about "if you listen to false teaching but take it to heart then....it is flushed out of your system into the proper receptacle". Jesus makes no such qualifying statement.

What I understand (and thank you for asking politely ) is the subject began with what the Pharisees were finding fault with...the disciples "unwashen hands" along with other traditions about washing. Those traditions were what Jesus found fault with for He said....

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."

He continued by "calling the people" and explaining....There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. It isn't what you ingest that defiles but rather your thoughts and actions that defile....

7:21 For from within out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, ......(23) All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."

It is about our spirits, about our salvation. Food won't cause us to loose that salvation but the evil things from within....can.

 

[Drew]

Please read my last post. ;)

~Sparrow

I have. I see nothing in that post relevant to my point that the food laws are not eternal laws that are connected significantly to matters of "good health" (although there may be an element of that). The food laws were given at Sinai - thousands of years after Adam.

 

[follower of Christ]

Now, I will again say...the deeper and most important lesson here is spiritually taking in the foul meat of false doctrine[/b]

Jesus cannot be read that way. He says that nothing that goes into the stomach and then comes out of the other end defiles

Does bad doctrine enter the stomach? No. Food enters the stomach.

Does bad doctrine leave the body and go into the toilet? No. It is "processed" food that goes into the toilet.

Boy its amazing the acrobatics WW will play to keep from just accepting the FACTS here, isnt it ?

And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and He has taken it out of the midst, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed principalities and powers, He mocked them in public, triumphing over them in it.
Therefore do not let anyone judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or of a new moon or of sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.
(Colossians 2:13-17 EMTV)


I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of itself; except to him considering anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
But if your brother is grieved on account of your food, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food the one on behalf of whom Christ died. Therefore do not let your good be slandered. For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
(Romans 14:14-17 EMTV)

 

[follower of Christ]

Food, even unclean foods, do not defile someone. They don't make one unholy but you must answer...are they good for you? Are they healthy? My answer is no

And you have not yet PROVEN that PROPERLY PREPARED pork is even one bit more UNhealthy for man than beef or any other meat that COULD be tainted with their own brands of bacteria, etc.....mad cow disease...get a clue.

 

[Sparkey]

Those who advocate the "tossing out" of the Torah are saying that Genesis and Exodus must be "thrown out" right along with Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The word Torah actually means "teaching," "doctrine," or "instruction" --- the common English word "law" gives us wrong impression.

We are not saying anything like this.

To say that the "Torah has been abolished or retired" means that the rules and practices given to Moses at Sinai - the "613 items" that are generally considered to consitituted that Law - are no longer in force. Regardless of "dictionary definitions", Paul uses the word Torah to refer specifically to the written law - the 613 rules, regulations, and practices set forth in Exodus, Leviticus, etc., etc.

No one is saying that we should tear out the first 5 books of the Bible. Torah is part of the Christian story and knowing about it is essential.

You speak as one who knows the mitzvot of God. The very first of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) is: To know that God exists!

Your brother,
~Sparrow

 

[follower of Christ]

Now, I will again say...the deeper and most important lesson here is spiritually taking in the foul meat of false doctrine[/b]

Jesus cannot be read that way. He says that nothing that goes into the stomach and then comes out of the other end defiles

Does bad doctrine enter the stomach? No. Food enters the stomach.

Does bad doctrine leave the body and go into the toilet? No. It is "processed" food that goes into the toilet.

:yes Of course it should be read that way. False doctrine taken in DOES DEFILE someone if it is taken to heart. It causes spiritual death. If you listen to false teaching but don't take it to heart then....it is flushed out of your system into the proper receptacle.

Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover.

We can drink or eat false doctrine, from the serpent, but we are not harmed if we know truth.

What a pathetic try.
If THIS nonsense is your best maybe you should consider letting others play teacher, friend.




.

 

[Drew]

Food, even unclean foods, do not defile someone.

!?!?!?!?...Ye have caused me to rend my garment......

Here, in the very establishment of the food laws, the fact that certain foods defiled the Jew - made him unclean - is clearly asserted:

Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, '(A)These are the creatures which you may eat from all the animals that are on the earth. 3'Whatever divides a hoof, thus making split hoofs, and chews the cud, among the animals, that you may eat. 4'Nevertheless, (B)you are not to eat of these, among those which chew the cud, or among those which divide the hoof: the camel, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you. 5'Likewise, the shaphan, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; 6the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you;

I'll bet you are going to say that to "be unclean" is not the same as "to be defiled".....

 

[follower of Christ]

God told Adam what was "good for food." Because the written word wasn't until the time of Moses doesn't mean the spoken word wasn't carried forward. :yes

Sorry but God COULD have just as easily told NOAH what NOT to eat.....but He DIDNT.
I submit that you go learn what the law was FOR and maybe that will help you find out why foods are no longer an issue