Continued from last post...
In Mark (and the other synoptics) Jesus clearly says that what you eat does not make you unclean. This is in direct contradiction to the Law of Moses which clearly states that certain foods do indeed make the Jew unclean.
Let me see if I got this straight. The Father says that food can defile a man, but his Son says it can't? Is that right? Is ther, then, a lack of unity in the godhead? Do you think the Father and the Son had a long argument about this, and that Jesus won that argument? Was the Father mistaken? Or might it be that it is you who are mistaken? If you look closer, you'll see that you are taking Jesus' words out of context.
Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. (Mark 7:1-4 KJV)
The disciples were eating bread, not pork or shellfish. Jesus wasn't addressing a debate on whether God's laws were still valid. There was no doubt about that. What he was addressing was the "tradition of the elders", and whether those traditions were valid. According to the oral law, food becomes defiled and defiles those who eat it, if certain regulations aren't followe regarding the washing of hands, cups, pots, etc, used in preparing, serving and eating the food. This is what Jesus was talking about. In fact, in the account of the same incident in Matthew, he says as much:
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. (Matt. 15:19-20 KJV)
Eating with unwashed hands isn't forbidden in God's law. That's man's law. Jesus is saying that nothing that man's law forbids can defile a man, but what God's law forbids can.
What is Jesus doing? He is cryptically declaring that the Law of Moses is coming to an end. And as "God the Son" He does indeed have that authority.
As I said, you're taking it out of context. He is doing no such thing.
And Jesus does other things that declare the imminent of the Law of Moses. He suggests that He is the new temple - this is a carefully crafted way of saying that the temple cult is coming to an end. And there are many others - Jesus says things and does things that clearly signify that the time of the Law of Moses is indeed coming to an end.
No, that's just what you're reading into his words. I notice that you seem relectant to provide scripture references. Even when you do quote verses, you don't mention chapter, verse and Bible version. This makes it a bit harder to respond to you, which is probably your intent. I haven't memorized the whole Bible, so I would appreciate it if you provided actual references to where things can be found in Scripture, so I can look them up in context. There are two instances where Christ compares himself to the temple, that I can think of and that you might be referring to. In one case, he says he is greater than the temple, and in the other, he says that if they tear down the temple of his body, he will rais it again in 3 days. There is nothing in either account that resembles what you say. If you are referring to something else, please qoute chapter and verse so I can look it up.
I had said previously that the Law of Moses was for Jews only. I deliberately did not qualify this by adding that it also applied to those Gentiles who were deeply integrated into the Jewish community.
"Deeply integrated"? You think that Egyptians were "deeply integrated" into the Jewish community? Are you serious? These were not people who were "deeply integrated" with anything Jewish, but people who had seen what God can do, and decided that they wanted Him to be their God. Coverts, yes, but "deeply integrated", no.
But this was a very small number of people.
Now, who's assuming? The Bible doesn't tell us anything about the number of Egyptians or others that went out with the Israelites. It does, however, tell us that the total number of Israelite men was about 600,000 (Ex. 12:37), and that a "mixed multitude" went with them. Think about that choice of words for a while. If you had a group of 600,000 Jews and a dozen Egyptians, would you call it a "mixed multitude"? No, probably not. You would be more likely to say "a few others went with them", or something similar. Even if there were a few hundred, you probably wouldn't call it a mixed multitude. From the choice of words, I think we can conclude that it was quite a large number, probably in the tens of thousands, at least.
I politely suggest that the position that the Law of Moses is for all the world is clearly not a supportable position for a wide range of reasons.
I never said it was. You're the one that keeps saying that.
Paul, for example reasons in Romans 3 that if people are justified by the Law of Moses
There we go again, with the connection between obedience and salvation. I never said I was doing any of these things to be justified or saved by them. I'm doing them because God tells us to. It's called "obedience". Is that so hard to understand?
then only Jews would be justified - this clearly shows that Paul sees the Law of Moses as applicable to only Jews (with the minor qualification I have added). No person would write these words if that person believed that Gentiles in general were under the Law of Moses:
It shows no such thing. It only shows that Paul belived (as I do) that nobody can be saved by keeping the law. It says nothing of who the law is for.
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
This text, by itself I suggest, shows that Paul believes only Jews are under the Law of Moses, precisely because he argues that if the Law of Moses had the ability to justify, only Jews would be justified by it.
I suggest that this text, by itself, says something quite different. It says that God is the God of both Jews and Gentiles. The same God is Lord of both and the same law and same requirements for salvation apply to both.
(Btw, sorry it took me a while to reply. My Internet connection went down, and it just now came up again. It's getting late, so I'll answer anything else you've written during this time tomorrow.)
