What does the Word say about the Law of YHWH which, in reality, is the Law of Moses?

[jocor]

I would ask the moderators to allow Jocor the greatest possible leniency in responding to this line of reasoning.

to which you replied:

No. His Father did. The Son rested on the 7th day every Sabbath, but I do not believe he rested on the very first "7th day" of the creation week.​

Because you do not recognize the LORD Jesus Christ as our God and Creator (Jn 1:3, Heb 1:2, Col 1:16, Isa 40:12,45:12), you can not understand that the Son of God rested on the seventh day of creation: "For He has spoken somewhere about the seventh day this way, 'And God rested from all His works in the seventh day [Gen. 2:2]' " (Heb 4:4 LITV), and "as God had rested from His own" (Heb 4:10 LITV).

Even if you do not believe that the Son of God created the world, surely you believe He was at least with God:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God" (John 1:1-2 LITV).​

And if He was with God at that time, wouldn't He [the One through whom all things are made] have rested on the seventh day of creation? Either way, yes, the Son of God rested on the 7th day of creation!

First of all, you have absolutely no right to apply LORD in all caps to Yeshua. LORD is a man-made substitute for YHWH. No where in Scripture do we ever read the phrase "YHWH Jesus Christ" or "YHWH YESHUA Messiah."

Second, You choosing to believe Yeshua is God, or our Creator, or that he rested on the first 7th day has no bearing on whether or not the Law of YHWH is the Law of Moses or on what Romans 3:31 is saying.

Third, I will not get into a discussion on the deity or preexistence of Messiah in this thread. It is irrelevant as far as a discussion on the Law is concerned.

I can see where your perspective of the Son of God [that He is not the LORD and Creator and Lawgiver] leads you to a veneration of Moses and the Law beyond what is intended. The One who wrote law on our hearts and communicated the Law to Moses, is the One who was crucified, fulfilling the Law. He is my standard; the LORD Jesus Christ is my banner; He is my righteousness and love.

I do not venerate the Law or Moses. I venerate Yahweh and Yeshua and live by EVERY word that proceeded out of their mouths as best I can with their help. Yeshua is my standard because he lived the Law of Moses perfectly. He set the example for me. He is my righteousness and love as well.

 

[jocor]

To bring post #293 to its conclusion: the Son of God, the LORD Jesus Christ, is Lord of the Sabbath (Mat 12:8). The Son of God rested with the Father after creating the cosmos; and the LORD Jesus Christ rested with the Father on the Sabbath after the Crucifixion, making possible a new creation in Christ. He Himself created the seventh day. As Lord of the Sabbath it is His to give to man (Exo 20:12), His to change its terms (compare Exo 20:8,9-11 with Deu 5:12,13-15), His to apportion (Ps 95:11, Heb 4:3), His to perfect (Heb 4:6-7,10), and His to enforce (Rom 14:5-6, Col 2:16-17).

All assumptions.

If a man is in Christ, then he has entered the rest which all of Scripture points to. But having said that, I do not believe the LORD would be disappointed if a man observed the 7th say Sabbath rest; and I would encourage anyone to do as much.

The rest we have in Messiah is a spiritual rest from sin and from seeking to be justified by our works. Yeshua does NOT give us the physical rest that the Sabbath provides.

 

[jocor]

Col.2:14
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross.

Rituals were put away, not the law.
Blood sacrifices, He became our sacrifice, He became our circumcision, our Passover, our Rest. (Sabbath)
Yahshua is our rest, I rest in Him, everyday.

"Ordinances", in Col 2:14, refer to man-made laws. You are correct, however, that it does not refer to the law.
Yeshua is our spiritual rest. He does not give us physical rest. It is great that you rest in him everyday, but you are to also rest physically on the 7th day of the week which was specifically blessed and sanctified for that purpose (Gen 2:1-3).

N.C,
Love God with all our heart, love thy neighbor,
This is the law, because it fulfills the law.
Because, if we love our neighbor,
We will not steal,
We will not covet,
We will not commit adultry,
We will not bear false witness, and so forth, written in our hearts.

If we love our neighbor, we will not cause him to work on the Sabbath.

Food?
It is health laws, I believe it will not cost you, your salvation, but it could make one sick.
Example:
Pork, pigs do not have sweat glands, thus poison toxins are trapped in the meat.
They were created as scavengers, to clean the earth, as other scavengers.
God created our bodies, thus know what is good for it.
In 1Tim.4:3,4
Some say see, every creature of God is good,
But they do not go back to verse 3, where it says, which God hath created to be received.
He hath created scavengers for cleaning the earth, not to be received for food.

I agree.

 

[Deborah13]

Ordinances are the man made rabbinical judgments added to the law, not the law itself.

No one, not even the Jews, have ever been judged by man-made ordinances. There would be no reason in the world for man-made ordinances to have been hung on the cross because they never meant anything to God.

It's impossible to say the law is not nullified/abolished in one statement and then say it's abolished in another. Unless you want to say there is a severe contradiction in the Bible.

It wasn't abolished, it was fulfilled and therefore it became obsolete.
To abolish something means to destroy, even violently destroy. He didn't destroy it, He fulfilled it.

 

[Deborah13]

Col.2:14
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross.

Rituals were put away, not the law.
Blood sacrifices, He became our sacrifice, He became our circumcision, our Passover, our Rest. (Sabbath)
Yahshua is our rest, I rest in Him, everyday.

N.C,
Love God with all our heart, love thy neighbor,
This is the law, because it fulfills the law.
Because, if we love our neighbor,
We will not steal,
We will not covet,
We will not commit adultry,
We will not bear false witness, and so forth, written in our hearts.

Food?
It is health laws, I believe it will not cost you, your salvation, but it could make one sick.
Example:
Pork, pigs do not have sweat glands, thus poison toxins are trapped in the meat.
They were created as scavengers, to clean the earth, as other scavengers.
God created our bodies, thus know what is good for it.
In 1Tim.4:3,4
Some say see, every creature of God is good,
But they do not go back to verse 3, where it says, which God hath created to be received.
He hath created scavengers for cleaning the earth, not to be received for food.

So from Noah (after the flood) to the Law of Moses, God wasn't considered about man eating foods that could make him sick?

 

[jocor]

The law of Moses has no place in the New Testament, especially for Gentiles, who were never under it of obligated to it in any way.

The only exception being if they wanted to live in the land of Israel and travel to Jerusalem three times s year.

The law of Moses was always temporary.

The Law of the Lord is eternal.

Then why did the apostles send a letter to the Gentile converts saying they must keep four laws of Moses (Acts 15:20)?
Why did the man who had his father's wife in 1Co 5:1 get put out of the assembly and turned over to Satan?
Why did Paul list all those laws of Moses in Romans 13:9?
Why do we need to obey the two greatest commandments which are laws of Moses?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The law of Moses has no place in the New Testament, especially for Gentiles, who were never under it of obligated to it in any way.

No place in the New Covenant? My Bible says otherwise:

"13 ...through love serve one another. 14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." (Galatians 5:14 NASB)

"8 he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9 For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. 11 Do this..." (Romans 13:8-11 NASB)

The law of Moses was always temporary.

The Law of the Lord is eternal.

Why does Paul command us to fulfill a law that was temporary and is now, as you say, abolished and gone? Your doctrine can't explain that because it claims the law is gone, and has been gone, yet Paul commands us to fulfill this long gone law in our daily living.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No one, not even the Jews, have ever been judged by man-made ordinances. There would be no reason in the world for man-made ordinances to have been hung on the cross because they never meant anything to God.

For those who don't know, you're referring to 'decrees' in Colossians 2:14.

"14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." (Colossians 2:14 NASB)

In the verse, "certificate of debt" is a HAND WRITTEN debt. So we know it can not be talking specifically and exclusively about rabbinical law, because rabbinical law was ORAL law. As you're pointing out, "decrees" is the word 'dogma' (the same 'dogma' that Paul uses in the Ephesians 2:15 NASB passage which refers to rabbinical law). Together, in context, they refer to the WRITTEN debt of the law of Moses we all owe ("for all have sinned and come short of the..."), including any expression of that debt in rabbinical add on law, being nailed to the cross, marked 'paid in full'.

The point of the passage being, if the debt of the law of Moses from which rabbinical law draws it's strength and authority from is nailed to the cross and no longer able to condemn us, how much less a rabbinical law. From vs.14 Paul then talks about this disarming of the principalities and powers that instituted those add on laws to the law of Moses and how we can now not be judged by others about them anymore.

"15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities (rabbinical authority), He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. 16 Therefore (since that authority has been disarmed through the nailing of the law to the cross) no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day..." (Colossians 2:15-16 NASB)

It wasn't abolished, it was fulfilled and therefore it became obsolete.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18 NASB)
Obsolete?

To abolish something means to destroy, even violently destroy. He didn't destroy it, He fulfilled it.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18 NASB)

He did fulfill this insofar as his righteousness is concerned, which is then imputed to us, but Paul commands US to fulfill the law. Jesus does not fulfill the lawful requirements of the law for us. We do.

 

[JLB]

Why does Paul command us to fulfill a law that was temporary and is now, as you say, abolished and gone? Your doctrine can't explain that because it claims the law is gone, and has been gone, yet Paul commands us to fulfill this long gone law in our daily living.

Why have you ignored this word in the bible for years now?

UNTIL?

The law was added until... a certain time in history when God would send His Son into the world to redeem those under the law.

Until.

The law was added until the Seed should come.

All scripture that speaks of the law of Moses must be understood that it was added UNTIL the Seed should come.

Since the Seed has come, the law has been made obsolete, and has vanished away, being nail to the cross and abolished.

15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace. Ephesians 2:15

The law of Commandments has been abolished in His flesh.

The Word became flesh, and was crucified, and with it the law of commandments.

The law and the prophets, which is a reference to the Torah, is summed up in the two commands, Love God and love your neighbor.

I don't need the law of Moses to do that.

The law of Moses doesn't empower me to do that... For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh. Romans 8:3

It is the life of Jesus Christ through the Eternal Spirit that does that.

We don't receive the Spirit by the works of the law.

If we have begun our new life in Christ, are we to mature by the works of the law?

The law of commandments has been abolished in His flesh.

JLB

 

[Deborah13]

For those who don't know, you're referring to 'decrees' in Colossians 2:14.

"14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." (Colossians 2:14 NASB)

In the verse, "certificate of debt" is a HAND WRITTEN debt. So we know it can not be talking specifically and exclusively about rabbinical law, because rabbinical law was ORAL law. As you're pointing out, "decrees" is the word 'dogma' (the same 'dogma' that Paul uses in the Ephesians 2:15 NASB passage which refers to rabbinical law). Together, in context, they refer to the WRITTEN debt of the law of Moses we all owe ("for all have sinned and come short of the..."), including any expression of that debt in rabbinical add on law, being nailed to the cross, marked 'paid in full'.

The point of the passage being, if the debt of the law of Moses from which rabbinical law draws it's strength and authority from is nailed to the cross and no longer able to condemn us, how much less a rabbinical law. Paul talks about the disarming of the principalities and powers that instituted those add on laws and how we can now not be judged by others about them anymore.

"15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities (rabbinical authority), He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. 16 Therefore (since that authority has been disarmed through the nailing of the law to the cross) no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day..." (Colossians 2:15-16 NASB)

Rabbical laws did not exist when God gave the Law of Moses that separated His PECULIAR people from the gentile nations. It was the peculiar laws of the Law of Moses that set them apart.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18 NASB)

Obsolete?

The Law of Moses is the old covenant with all it's individual ordinances.

Did love your neighbor as yourself begin with the Law of Moses or was that principle always what God commanded?
The Spirit in your heart tells you this was always God's standard from the very beginning. God is God, His very nature, that we see in Jesus, tells us that is what God always expected man to do. God's nature has never changed.

From Thayer's Lexicon and Strong's
G1378 - dogma and it's forms.
2. of the rules and requirements of the law of Moses, 3Macc. 1:3; διατήρησις τῶν ἁγίων δογμάτων, Philo, alleg. legg. i., § 16; carrying a suggestion of severity, and of threatened punishment, τόν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δογμασι, the law containing precepts in the form of decrees (A. V. the law of commandments contained in ordinances), Ephesians 2:15; τό καθ' ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δογμασι equivalent to τό τοῖς δογμασι (dative of instrument) by ὄν καθ' ἡμῶν, the bond against us by its decrees, Colossians 2:14; cf. Winers Grammar, § 31, 10 Note 1 (Buttmann, 92 (80); on both passages see Lightfoot on Colossians, the passage cited).

3. of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living: Acts 16:4. (Of all the precepts of the Christian religion: βεβαιωθῆναι ἐν τοῖς δόγμασιν τοῦ κυρίου καί τῶν ἀποστόλων, Ignatius ad Magnes. 13, 1 [ET]; of the precepts (`sentences' or tenets) of philosophers, in the later secular writings: Cicero, acad. 2, 9, 27de suis decretis, quae philosophi vocant dogmata.) (On the use of the word in general, see Lightfoot as above; (cf. 'Teaching' etc. 11, 3 [ET]).)
http://biblehub.com/greek/1378.htm

Are we suppose to follow what the apostles told us about how to live our lives? Yes. The decrees and their authority to give us decrees came from God and they too have been written down for us.
Act 16:4 And as they were going on through the cities, they were delivering to them the decrees (dogma) to keep, that have been judged by the apostles and the elders who are in Jerusalem,
Act 16:5 then, indeed, were the assemblies established in the faith, and were abounding in number every day;
If we believe that these decrees (dogma) where simply the 'opinions' of men, then we don't have to follow them and Paul would be contradicting himself.
So there goes the five fold ministry and .....
There goes the 'opinion' of Paul that women are not allowed to 'upsurp' authority of men. :wink

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Rabbical laws did not exist when God gave the Law of Moses that separated His PECULIAR people from the gentile nations. It was the peculiar laws of the Law of Moses that set them apart.


The Law of Moses is the old covenant with all it's individual ordinances.

Did love your neighbor as yourself begin with the Law of Moses or was that principle always what God commanded?
The Spirit in your heart tells you this was always God's standard from the very beginning. God is God, His very nature, that we see in Jesus, tells us that is what God always expected man to do. God's nature has never changed.

From Thayer's Lexicon and Strong's
G1378 - dogma and it's forms.
2. of the rules and requirements of the law of Moses, 3Macc. 1:3; διατήρησις τῶν ἁγίων δογμάτων, Philo, alleg. legg. i., § 16; carrying a suggestion of severity, and of threatened punishment, τόν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δογμασι, the law containing precepts in the form of decrees (A. V. the law of commandments contained in ordinances), Ephesians 2:15; τό καθ' ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δογμασι equivalent to τό τοῖς δογμασι (dative of instrument) by ὄν καθ' ἡμῶν, the bond against us by its decrees, Colossians 2:14; cf. Winers Grammar, § 31, 10 Note 1 (Buttmann, 92 (80); on both passages see Lightfoot on Colossians, the passage cited).

3. of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living: Acts 16:4. (Of all the precepts of the Christian religion: βεβαιωθῆναι ἐν τοῖς δόγμασιν τοῦ κυρίου καί τῶν ἀποστόλων, Ignatius ad Magnes. 13, 1 [ET]; of the precepts (`sentences' or tenets) of philosophers, in the later secular writings: Cicero, acad. 2, 9, 27de suis decretis, quae philosophi vocant dogmata.) (On the use of the word in general, see Lightfoot as above; (cf. 'Teaching' etc. 11, 3 [ET]).)
http://biblehub.com/greek/1378.htm

Are we suppose to follow what the apostles told us about how to live our lives? Yes. The decrees and their authority to give us decrees came from God and they too have been written down for us.
Act 16:4 And as they were going on through the cities, they were delivering to them the decrees (dogma) to keep, that have been judged by the apostles and the elders who are in Jerusalem,
Act 16:5 then, indeed, were the assemblies established in the faith, and were abounding in number every day;
If we believe that these decrees (dogma) where simply the 'opinions' of men, then we don't have to follow them and Paul would be contradicting himself.
So there goes the five fold ministry and .....
There goes the 'opinion' of Paul that women are not allowed to 'upsurp' authority of men. :wink

It's not real clear where you're at in all this, but it does seem that you understand 'dogma' does not by definition mean 'man made'. That's why 'dogma' can mean rabbinical law in Ephesians 2:15 NASB, and mean the sum total of the law of Moses (with it's rabbinical add on's) in Colossians 2:14 NASB. Context is how we now what 'dogma' is being addressed. Agreed?

Dogma probably doesn't mean the law of Moses in Ephesians 2:15 NASB because it is made clear without argument in more than one other place in the Bible that the law of Moses was not abolished. On the other hand, dogma can mean the law of Moses in Colossians 2:14 NASB because the context of the passage is the written debt of law (and how it relates to rabbinical add on law).

The Law of Moses is the old covenant with all it's individual ordinances.

Did love your neighbor as yourself begin with the Law of Moses or was that principle always what God commanded?
The Spirit in your heart tells you this was always God's standard from the very beginning. God is God, His very nature, that we see in Jesus, tells us that is what God always expected man to do. God's nature has never changed.

Here's the truly amazing part. Somehow the exact same law before it was written down in the law of Moses is somehow a different law after it got written down in the law of Moses. Of course, this ridiculous doctrine was invented to explain and defend the gross misunderstanding that the law of Moses was somehow abolished by Jesus.

What's even more amazing is the fear so many have in acknowledging that the law of Moses has not been abolished. The irrational, knee jerk reaction to that being that somehow means we are back under the condemnation of the law, and back under the literal first covenant system of worship. But that's not what it means at all. But I know what an uphill battle it is to undo centuries of erroneous indoctrination and misunderstanding about the law in the church today.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Why have you ignored this word in the bible for years now?

UNTIL?

Grammatically, 'until' can not trump Jesus' statement that he did not come to abolish the law.

What he does allude to is that the law can be changed after the accomplishment/fulfillment occurs. The change of law that was allowed as a result of the accomplishment is the end of the law as a covenant through which we relate to God (animal sacrifice for sin, the Levitical priesthood, the literal temple, etc.). This is explained in Hebrews.

Right there in Jesus' words in Matthew 5:17-18 NASB we see the law not being abolished by his coming (he said he did not come to do that), but being allowed to be changed by, and not until, his coming. The problem with Protestant church doctrine about the law is the failure to distinguish between these two things and thinking that a change of law has to be the equivalent to an abolishing of the law. That's impossible in this case. Why? Because Jesus said he did not come to do that. But he did say it can be changed after the accomplishment occurs. And even what is changed about the law doesn't leave it unfulfilled. Which is important, because if it did leave it unfulfilled that would be the abolishing of the law he said he did not come to do.

The law and the prophets, which is a reference to the Torah, is summed up in the two commands, Love God and love your neighbor.

I don't need the law of Moses to do that.

What you don't need is the WAY of the law of Moses to do that. You need the law of Moses to even know about those commands. It's impossible to even refer to those laws without referring to them as the law of Moses.

This is another failure of understanding about the law in the church. It's the failure to distinguish between the law of Moses as a covenant, and the law of Moses itself. The way the church resolves this misunderstanding that it created is to adopt a 'two law' doctrine.

 

[JLB]

Grammatically, 'until' can not trump Jesus' statement that he did not come to abolish the law.

17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Matthew 5:17-18

In verse 17 Jesus couples "the Law" with the Prophets, which defines the meaning of the law to the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, which includes Genesis. This is not a reference to the law of Moses, but of the entire Torah and the prophets which foretold of the Messiah through types and shadows as well as direct prophecies.

Jesus didn't come to abolish the very prophecies that were foretold of His life on earth, and His work on the cross.

He said Himself He came to fulfill, and He said nothing would change or pass from the law until they were fulfilled.

He fulfilled them as he said He would.

Verse 18 is a reference to the law of Moses, because the context of the following verse and it's use of "commandments".

Jesus establishes the law of Christ over the law of Moses in the following verses by changing the law of Moses to the law of Christ.

You have heard it said = law of Moses

But I say to you = law of Christ.

There is no "trump" in the words of Jesus over Paul, there is simply the rightly diving the word of truth.

Paul learned directly from Jesus.

Jesus words purified all foods which is a change from the law of Moses and those food laws.

Jesus changed the law of Moses to the law of Christ, as he is the mediator of the New Covenant, not Moses.

He abolished the law of commandments in His flesh, and gave us the law of Christ.


JLB

 

[jocor]

From Thayer's Lexicon and Strong's
G1378 - dogma and it's forms.
2.of the rules and requirements of the law of Moses,3Macc. 1:3; διατήρησις τῶν ἁγίων δογμάτων, Philo, alleg. legg. i., § 16; carrying a suggestion of severity, and of threatened punishment, τόν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δογμασι, the law containing precepts in the form of decrees (A. V. the law of commandments contained in ordinances),Ephesians 2:15; τό καθ' ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δογμασι equivalent to τό τοῖς δογμασι (dative of instrument) by ὄν καθ' ἡμῶν, the bond against us by its decrees,Colossians 2:14; cf. Winers Grammar, § 31, 10 Note 1 (Buttmann, 92 (80); on both passages see Lightfoot on Colossians, the passage cited).

The references to 3 Macc 1:3 and Philo do not pertain to Yahweh’s laws, but to traditions and opinions. The other references are the ones in question. Thayer is giving definitions based on the Christian interpretation of those verses referring to the Law of Moses.

3. of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living

:Acts 16:4. (Of all the precepts of the Christian religion: βεβαιωθῆναι ἐν τοῖς δόγμασιν τοῦ κυρίου καί τῶν ἀποστόλων, Ignatius ad Magnes. 13, 1 [ET]; of the precepts (`sentences' or tenets) of philosophers, in the later secular writings: Cicero, acad. 2, 9, 27de suis decretis, quae philosophi vocant dogmata.) (On the use of the word in general, see Lightfoot as above; (cf. 'Teaching' etc. 11, 3 [ET]).)http://biblehub.com/greek/1378.htm

Thayer references Acts 16:4 and says it refers to “all the precepts of the Christian religion”??? It does no such thing. It only refers to the decrees given at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

Are we suppose to follow what the apostles told us about how to live our lives? Yes. The decrees and their authority to give us decrees came from God and they too have been written down for us.Act 16:4And as they were going on through the cities, they were delivering to them thedecrees (dogma)to keep, that have been judged by the apostles and the elders who are in Jerusalem,
Act 16:5then, indeed, were the assemblies established in the faith, and were abounding in number every day;
Ifwe believe that these decrees (dogma) where simply the 'opinions' of men, then we don't have to follow them and Paul would be contradicting himself.

Verse 4 says the decrees were “judged by the apostles and elders” in Jerusalem. It does not say the decrees were commanded by Yahweh or the Holy Spirit. They weren’t simply the opinions of men, but were the opinion of one man, James, who received the approval of the Holy Spirit and the other apostles and elders present.

Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: (not “hearken unto the Holy Spirit”).

Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (not “the Holy Spirit commands” or “the Lord says, not I”).

Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (It doesn’t say “The Holy Spirit commanded” or “The Holy Spirit moved us”. After James gave his decree, the apostles and elders, as well as the Holy Spirit, thought it was a good decree. They approved it. A dogma is a man-made decree that can be good or bad. In this case it was good. In Col 2:14 & Eph 2:15, they were bad decrees. If the Holy Spirit put it on James’ heart to make that decree, it would not say “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit”. Any leading or command by the Holy Spirit is automatically good. Had the Holy Spirit given the command, verse 28 would read, “For the Holy Spirit’s command to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things seemed good to us;”​

 

[jocor]

17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Matthew 5:17-18

In verse 17 Jesus couples "the Law" with the Prophets, which defines the meaning of the law to the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, which includes Genesis. This is not a reference to the law of Moses, but of the entire Torah and the prophets which foretold of the Messiah through types and shadows as well as direct prophecies.

Jesus didn't come to abolish the very prophecies that were foretold of His life on earth, and His work on the cross.

He said Himself He came to fulfill, and He said nothing would change or pass from the law until they were fulfilled.

He fulfilled them as he said He would.

Yeshua fulfilled the laws and prophecies pertaining to him and his first coming. He did NOT fulfill laws or prophecies that did not pertain to him or prophecies concerning his second coming.

Jesus establishes the law of Christ over the law of Moses in the following verses by changing the law of Moses to the law of Christ.

You have heard it said = law of Moses

But I say to you = law of Christ.

Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.​

Yeshua's words in verse 22 DO NOT negate the law of Moses in verse 21. We are still not permitted to literally kill (murder). Yeshua magnified the Law of Moses by giving us its true parameters.

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.​

Yeshua's words in verse 28 DO NOT negate the law of Moses in verse 27. We are still not permitted to commit literal adultery. Yeshua magnified the Law of Moses by giving us its true parameters.

Mat 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.​

Yeshua's words in verse 32 DO NOT negate the Law of Moses in verse 31. We must still give a wife written divorce papers if she commits fornication and we choose to divorce her on those grounds. BTW, the higher road is to forgive and not divorce.

Mat 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
Mat 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:​

Yeshua's words in verse 34 DO NOT negate the Law of Moses in verse 33. We must still perform our oaths if we choose to disobey Yeshua and make one.

The Law of Messiah magnifies the Law of Moses. It does not replace it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Matthew 5:17-18

In verse 17 Jesus couples "the Law" with the Prophets, which defines the meaning of the law to the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, which includes Genesis. This is not a reference to the law of Moses, but of the entire Torah and the prophets which foretold of the Messiah through types and shadows as well as direct prophecies.

Jesus didn't come to abolish the very prophecies that were foretold of His life on earth, and His work on the cross.

He said Himself He came to fulfill, and He said nothing would change or pass from the law until they were fulfilled.

He fulfilled them as he said He would.

Verse 18 is a reference to the law of Moses, because the context of the following verse and it's use of "commandments".

Okay, good. But why then do you ignore the 'for' between verses 17 and 18 that show that 'the law and the prophets' isn't just about him fulfilling prophecy but is also referring to the instruction of the law, just as verses 18 and 19 are connected and are talking about the instruction of the law?


17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth passaway, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19 "Whoever * then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teachesothers to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever *keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

It's easy to see that verses 17 and 18 are firmly connected. Just as verses 18 and 19 are. All three together are talking about the instruction of the law of Moses and the prophets, not just the prophecies about Jesus in the law and the prophets.

Jesus establishes the law of Christ over the law of Moses in the following verses by changing the law of Moses to the law of Christ.

You have heard it said = law of Moses

But I say to you = law of Christ.

The problem remaining is your definition of the law of Christ/God. The law of Christ is the law of Moses minus that which got laid aside as obsolete and unneeded now. Christ obviously has no sin that he needs a system of sacrifice to relate to God through. Likewise, those who have been brought near to God through Christ don't need it either. But Christ most certainly lives what remains of the law of Moses. He is the very epitome of it. Thus 'law of Christ' is very fitting. And so we also live what remains of the law of Moses, which Paul calls the 'law of Christ/God'.

There is no "trump" in the words of Jesus over Paul, there is simply the rightly diving the word of truth.

Right. They are consistent with each other, not contradictory. So there is not case for one's word trumping another. But it is your doctrine that interprets Paul's abolishing of the law as the abolishing of the law of Moses (for all that means to the church today). Having that doctrine most certainly causes one to have to decide who's word should trump the other.

There's no reason to even go there if you take Jesus' words at face value and accept without reservation or interpretation that he did not come to abolish the law. Period. And because it is that way, we must understand Paul's words in light of those more compelling words of Jesus, not trump Jesus' words with Paul's (or vice versa). As I say, there is no contradiction that a trumping of words has to even occur. We simply interpret Paul's words in light of Jesus' straightforward words.

Jesus words purified all foods which is a change from the law of Moses and those food laws.

Jesus changed the law of Moses to the law of Christ, as he is the mediator of the New Covenant, not Moses.

Correct. But that hardly means an abolishing of those food laws.

Every time you and I discriminate between things we bring into ourselves we are fulfilling, not abolishing the dietary laws of the old covenant. It's just that they get fulfilled in the new way of the New Covenant of Christ and faith in him. It's the same way that the laws of sacrifice for sin get fulfilled, not abolished, in this New Covenant. In fact, sacrifice for sin is probably the best way to understand how the law of Moses can be made obsolete in this New Covenant, yet be fulfilled, not abolished, in this New Covenant.

 

[chessman]

pigs do not have sweat glands, thus poison toxins are trapped in the meat.

First, pigs do have sweat glands. Just not as many as most other mammals do.
Second, 99% of the body's toxins are excreted through urine or bowels or breath, of which a pig produces a plenty. Only 1% of toxins are excreted through sweat glands even by mammals that have lot's of them. Sweat glands are for the body's temperature regulation, not toxin regulation. The point is, pig's get ride of their toxins just fine. Else, they'd die.
Third, fish don't have sweat glands and Jesus ate fish.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

First, pigs do have sweat glands. Just not as many as most other mammals do.
Second, 99% of the body's toxins are excreted through urine or bowels or breath, of which a pig produces a plenty. Only 1% of toxins are excreted through sweat glands even by mammals that have lot's of them. Sweat glands are for the body's temperature regulation, not toxin regulation. The point is, pig's get ride of their toxins just fine. Else, they'd die.
Third, fish don't have sweat glands and Jesus ate fish.

Good observation.

What I see illustrated in the animals that should not be taken into oneself is they fall into the general categories of bottom feeders and predatory hunters.

In the Bible there is this connection between eating and fellowship. Something we just don't understand fully in our modern western societies. We see this connection when Jesus used formerly forbidden foods to illustrate to Peter truths about fellowship with gentiles in Acts 10:9-23 NASB.

Spiritually, it behooves us to not 'fellowship' with worldly bottom feeders and those who prey on our spiritual lives. And this is what the law was pointing to in it's various prohibitions of foods. That means breaking off relationships with people and things that can only provide us with the unhealthy diet of a bottom feeder and which expose us to that which preys on our spiritual well being.

Using unclean foods in this way, Jesus shows how the predatory and bottom feeding gentiles were made safe for fellowship--for consumption, so to speak--through faith. We are not to call unclean that which God has made clean. This, IMO, is an example of handling the law properly. In this case, the law concerning eating unclean foods. It's an illustration of higher spiritual truth. Just as animal sacrifice for sin is an illustration of higher spiritual truth.

 

[jocor]

First, pigs do have sweat glands. Just not as many as most other mammals do.
Second, 99% of the body's toxins are excreted through urine or bowels or breath, of which a pig produces a plenty. Only 1% of toxins are excreted through sweat glands even by mammals that have lot's of them. Sweat glands are for the body's temperature regulation, not toxin regulation. The point is, pig's get ride of their toxins just fine. Else, they'd die.
Third, fish don't have sweat glands and Jesus ate fish.

You can find all sorts of info on the web, both pro and con, concerning the health aspects of eating swine's flesh. The fact of the matter is, Yahweh commanded His people to not eat it. When the Day of YHWH comes burning like an oven, people that eat swine's flesh will receive Yahweh's fiery judgment.

Isa 66:15 For, behold, YHWH will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
Isa 66:16 For by fire and by his sword will YHWH plead with all flesh: and the slain of YHWH shall be many.
Isa 66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith YHWH.
Isa 66:18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.
​

Why would Yahweh destroy those that eat swine's flesh if He now allows His people to eat swine's flesh?

As for Yeshua, the fish he ate had fins and scales as commanded in the Law of Moses.

 

[jocor]

Good observation.

What I see illustrated in the animals that should not be taken into oneself is they fall into the general categories of bottom feeders and predatory hunters.

In the Bible there is this connection between eating and fellowship. Something we just don't understand fully in our modern western societies. We see this connection when Jesus used formerly forbidden foods to illustrate to Peter truths about fellowship with gentiles in Acts 10:9-23 NASB.

Spiritually, it behooves us to not 'fellowship' with worldly bottom feeders and those who prey on our spiritual lives. And this is what the law was pointing to in it's various prohibitions of foods. That means breaking off relationships with people and things that can only provide us with the unhealthy diet of a bottom feeder and which expose us to that which preys on our spiritual well being.

Using unclean foods in this way, Jesus shows how the predatory and bottom feeding gentiles were made safe for fellowship--for consumption, so to speak--through faith. We are not to call unclean that which God has made clean. This, IMO, is an example of handling the law properly. In this case, the law concerning eating unclean foods. It's an illustration of higher spiritual truth. Just as animal sacrifice for sin is an illustration of higher spiritual truth.

You cannot pick and choose which commands have a spiritual application that renders the literal application null and void. Are we now free to murder, steal, commit adultery, covet, etc.? Paul applied the command to not muzzle oxen to providing for the needs of Yahweh's ministers. Does that mean we can now literally muzzle our oxen as they tread our grain?

Also, Yahweh, not Yeshua, used forbidden foods (foods that the Apostle Peter was still not eating ten years after Yeshua's resurrection) to teach a lesson concerning fellowship. He was teaching that the Gentile converts were clean, not the food. The Bible never records such an abominable interpretation as that. The interpretation recorded is;

Acts 10:28 - "... but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."​