Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Problems

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
    Colossians 2:16-17
    Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
    This was what Paul was warning them about:

    Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ.

    He goes into more details about what they were teaching here:

    Colossians 2:20-23 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

    So the people were keeping God's feasts as instructed by and Paul was encouraging them not to be judged for keeping them by those who were promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body.
    "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
      You speak as if the knowledge of sin was good. In 3:20, Paul had used this point as another negative statement against following the law. Again 7:7 doesn't say that it was good to know what sin is. People miss the manner by which Paul was trying to counter the audience's use of 'law' as a negative attribute to denounce Jews. Paul was showing that the law itself had been created as something good. But the end result, due to the flesh, was that the law brought wrath (Rom 4:15). And in 7:8 the teaching on 'sin' led them to sin; certainly this was not desirable. Yet you are seeking the law.
      Aparently God thought it was good for us to have knowledge of sin or else He wouldn't have given it to us. The reason why reverse psychology works is that there is something in us that wants to rebel at being told what to do. So as you say, the law is good, but the problem is that when it comes in contact with our sin nature, our sin nature causes us to increase our rebellion. This is one of the things that holds us captive in 7:6 that we died to so that we can be free to obey the holy, righteous, and good law by walking in the Spirit.

      In any case, regardless of whether having knowledge of sin is a good or bad thing, we have it, and we need to decide what to do with it. Paul says that being under the law doesn't mean we are to sin, so we should still apply the knowledge that the law gives about sin to how we should conduct our lives.

      The point of 3:31 is often missed. Paul has just said (in 3:9-30) that their justification was not by the law ... and more specifically he mentioned that gentiles were not in the jurisdiction of the law (3:19). "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law." In the context of the discussion "those under the law" were Jews. The law didn't extend to anyone else.
      We are all born under the law and God will hold the whole world accountable to it, so Paul is talking about a point that God is making to everyone: We all fall short of God's holy, righteous, and good standard and so no one by works will be justified in His sight.

      So in verses 3:9-30 Paul is making the point that we are justified by faith apart from the law, but he didn't want anyone to misunderstand him as saying that the law has no role in the Christian life, so he added verse 31 to say that our faith upholds the law by leading us to obey it. It's the same point he's making here:

      Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

      You can't just focus on verse 8-9 about being saved by grace through faith apart from works and ignore that good works that God has instructed to do come right back in in verse 10 and are part of what it means to be a new creation in Christ. Our faith leads us to obey God.

      Any sense of "being released from the law" would simply be due to the confusion of gentiles having joined the Messianic sect of Judaism. Many Jews were saying "you have to follow the pre-Messianic ways." Paul says "no, you are released from any of the old laws, despite joining Judaism in this new sect. We have to remember that Jews had their lineage and religion; gentiles had their lineages and religions. There was not really a solid conceptualization of what it meant to be a gentile who followed the Christ. These gentiles were tweeners -- caught between two cultural systems.
      God did not give the law to Moses and the Israelites so that they could become justified by keeping it. If any of them were justified, then they were justified by faith, like Abraham and David (Romans 4:1-8), so they would have been justified by faith before the law was given to them. So the law was given them in part to instruct them about how to live rightly. Trying to become justified by keeping the law is a perversion of the law, and it was this that Paul was telling Gentiles not to do. But you must not mistake a criticism of a perversion of the law as a criticism of the holy, righteous, and good law itself.

      According to Ephesians 2:11-22 Gentiles "were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world", but are now "no longer strangers and aliens,[d] but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members". Gentiles have been joined with Israel and are now part of God's chosen people and a holy nation, so what God once said to the Israelites now applies to Gentiles as well.

      Why? because people corrupted the law and made it their goal instead of following God. The situation addressed in Rom 7 was apparently that part of the gentile audience had first experienced their Christian walk among Jewish followers of Christ, meeting in synagogues in Rome. A complex progression of events led the gentiles back to concern whether they could be made 'right' by following the law. Paul is arguing against this -- while still maintaining an apologetic for the pre-Messianic Jews. As such Paul was saying "there were good reasons behind the law and the law itself was good for its purpose" and then he also was warning them that attempts to follow the law would only promote a sense of condemnation.
      The correct solution to bad Christianity is not no Christianity, but rather it is good Christianity. Similarly, the correct solution to following a law that has been corrupted into legalism is to follow the law in the way God intended it to be followed, not to disregard it. Paul argued against keeping the law in order be justified, but he never argued against keeping the law by faith and through the leading of the Spirit. If they tried to keep the law in order to be justified, then because we have all fallen short, they would fail to become justified and would fall under its condemnation.

      This answer is straightforward in Paul's discussion. The Jewish laws were something followed by the flesh. So if gentiles were going to now try to follow God by the laws, they would thus be attempting to follow God by their flesh.
      Wow, you've twisted that verse beyond recognition.

      Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

      The law is spiritual and was always intended to be followed by faith in a way that built a relationship between God and his people, not something that was meant to be followed by the flesh. It is the mind that is set on flesh is hostile to God and does not submit to God's law. God has always disdained a outward obedience to the law while their hearts were far from him, so following the law by the flesh leads to a legalistic perversion of the law. The role of the Spirit is to lead us into obedience to God's law:

      Ezekiel 36:27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

      You are missing Paul's whole argument here. Paul was speaking against the desire (or presumed need) to follow the law and, hence, the flesh when seeking to follow God. If you are seeking the law, you are following a path that Paul said doesn't work, that is "the mind is set on flesh [and] is hostile to God." The law was something that had become the unnatural focus of Jews by the first century -- and was what Paul was trying to stop happening to the Christ-sect of Judaism.
      Paul didn't say that the mind set of flesh desired to obey God's law, but that it was hostile to God and didn't submit to God's law.

      Can you try to examine the possibility that God's holy, righteous, and good law for how to live in a manner that is holy, righteous, and good is a good thing? It is truly bizarre trying to convince other Christians that obedience to the God they follow is good. All throughout the OT, God was wanting His people to obey him by faith, yet now so many Christians have flipped it around and think that obedience to God is a bad thing. It's true that following God's commands legalistically when our heart is far from Him is bad, but that doesn't mean that following the law as God intended it by faith and by the leading of the Spirit is also bad.
      "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
        Apparently God thought it was good for us to have knowledge of sin or else He wouldn't have given it to us. The reason why reverse psychology works is that there is something in us that wants to rebel at being told what to do. So as you say, the law is good, but the problem is that when it comes in contact with our sin nature, our sin nature causes us to increase our rebellion. This is one of the things that holds us captive in 7:6 that we died to so that we can be free to obey the holy, righteous, and good law by walking in the Spirit.

        In any case, regardless of whether having knowledge of sin is a good or bad thing, we have it, and we need to decide what to do with it. Paul says that being under the law doesn't mean we are to sin, so we should still apply the knowledge that the law gives about sin to how we should conduct our lives. (i.e. the instruction book on 'how to sin' )
        You miss Paul's argument in your response. Paul wasn't weighing whether it was good to know sin or not. He was saying the disadvantage of learning the law is that it, instead, teaches you how to sin.

        I suggest that 'sin' is not defined for Christians, because Christians are not under the law. But if you like sin (and being subject to wrath-- Rom 4:15), then go ahead and focus on the law.

        You are to die to the law. What does that mean? It means you no longer have a relationship with the law. I don't see what part of that verse isn't so obvious.

        We are all born under the law and God will hold the whole world accountable to it, so Paul is talking about a point that God is making to everyone: We all fall short of God's holy, righteous, and good standard and so no one by works will be justified in His sight.

        So in verses 3:9-30 Paul is making the point that we are justified by faith apart from the law, but he didn't want anyone to misunderstand him as saying that the law has no role in the Christian life, so he added verse 31 to say that our faith upholds the law by leading us to obey it. It's the same point he's making here:

        Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

        You can't just focus on verse 8-9 about being saved by grace through faith apart from works and ignore that good works that God has instructed to do come right back in in verse 10 and are part of what it means to be a new creation in Christ. Our faith leads us to obey God.
        You missed Paul's argument again. He said only Jews were under law of Moses.

        The mention of "whole world held accountable" was showing that Jews TOO were going to be found guilty -- and their guilt, specifically, was because of THEIR violation of the law. Paul was saying that Jews who proclaimed the law did not have a benefit of righteousness by that law. No instead... they would be found guilty of it. Note that gentiles were already assumed, under first century Jewish doctrine, to be unrighteous; Paul now was showing Jews automatically would be found unrighteous because of THEIR law.

        It is more subtle but 'good works' was the action of followers of Christ contrasted against actions of those seeking to follow the law.

        You have good company in misunderstanding 3:31. The only reason Paul added this point was that gentiles would not hold unlimited contempt against the law; the gentiles were supposed to recognize that the law (i.e. the scriptures ) prophesied of the coming of Christ -- and hence the scriptures deserved some appreciation -- but not so far as to take on a law written for Jews. You really have to add many unwarranted words ( i.e. "by leading us to obey it" ) to come to your conclusion. (Nor does your suggested interpretation seem to fit within any reasonable context established in the preceding verses.)

        God did not give the law to Moses and the Israelites so that they could become justified by keeping it. If any of them were justified, then they were justified by faith, like Abraham and David (Romans 4:1-8), so they would have been justified by faith before the law was given to them. So the law was given them in part to instruct them about how to live rightly. Trying to become justified by keeping the law is a perversion of the law, and it was this that Paul was telling Gentiles not to do. But you must not mistake a criticism of a perversion of the law as a criticism of the holy, righteous, and good law itself.
        I'm sorry. You would have to show where scripture shows that the law was to show them how to live rightly.

        You are right that PART OF the problem was that Jewish laws represented a distorted augmentation of the Law of Moses.

        According to Ephesians 2:11-22 Gentiles "were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world", but are now "no longer strangers and aliens,[d] but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members". Gentiles have been joined with Israel and are now part of God's chosen people and a holy nation, so what God once said to the Israelites now applies to Gentiles as well.
        Your interpretation of Israel is incorrect here. Can you show where gentiles had a race change? Where is a gentile equated to an Israelite? There are other people that make this false unjustified association.


        The correct solution to bad Christianity is not no Christianity, but rather it is good Christianity. Similarly, the correct solution to following a law that has been corrupted into legalism is to follow the law in the way God intended it to be followed, not to disregard it. Paul argued against keeping the law in order be justified, but he never argued against keeping the law by faith and through the leading of the Spirit. If they tried to keep the law in order to be justified, then because we have all fallen short, they would fail to become justified and would fall under its condemnation.
        You would need to find some verse somewhere to support your assertion here.

        Note that if you violate a South African law while you are in Egypt, I am going to declare you guilty -- This is the equivalence to saying Christians are under Jewish law.

        This answer is straightforward in Paul's discussion. The Jewish laws were something followed by the flesh. So if gentiles were going to now try to follow God by the laws, they would thus be attempting to follow God by their flesh.
        Wow, you've twisted that verse beyond recognition.
        Your complaint should be addressed to Paul is you don't like his argument.

        Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

        The law is spiritual and was always intended to be followed by faith in a way that built a relationship between God and his people, not something that was meant to be followed by the flesh. It is the mind that is set on flesh is hostile to God and does not submit to God's law. God has always disdained a outward obedience to the law while their hearts were far from him, so following the law by the flesh leads to a legalistic perversion of the law. The role of the Spirit is to lead us into obedience to God's law:
        The only way people ever followed the law was by the flesh.
        Rom 7:14 is a weak verse to use for your argument until you identify exactly what Paul was arguing about in Rom 7.


        Ezekiel 36:27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
        This verse goes with the idea of the law being written on peoples' heart. It is God's Spirit doing the law here. We are freed from doing it.
        I think such proposal ultimately reflects what has happened in Christianity through Christ. But I have not examined this verse in great detail. I don't know if you have examined this carefully.

        In essence it seems that God was looking ahead when Christ would come and some people would recognize they had followed the law instead of God. The solution was that God would make it easy to follow Him -- without having the problems generated by the law.

        All this is to say that you have not seemed to give an explanation to undo what I understand about this verse.



        Paul didn't say that the mind set of flesh desired to obey God's law, but that it was hostile to God and didn't submit to God's law.

        Can you try to examine the possibility that God's holy, righteous, and good law for how to live in a manner that is holy, righteous, and good is a good thing? It is truly bizarre trying to convince other Christians that obedience to the God they follow is good. All throughout the OT, God was wanting His people to obey him by faith, yet now so many Christians have flipped it around and think that obedience to God is a bad thing. It's true that following God's commands legalistically when our heart is far from Him is bad, but that doesn't mean that following the law as God intended it by faith and by the leading of the Spirit is also bad.
        I have examined such possibility. The law doesn't fit in the life of a Christian.
        I agree it is truly bizarre to convince Christians to follow something that doesn't apply to them.

        Trying to follow the law, as a Christian, is the same thing as trying to follow the law as a non-follower of Christ. It has the same pitfalls.

        The problems of reactivation of the law are many:

        People sought righteousness by doing the law-- this is a standard effect.
        People judge others for not doing the law. They violate James who said that being a judge of the law doesn't make you a doer of the law. (Ja 4:11)
        People become focused on legal issues instead of loving issues.
        Those who seek the law have the same mindset as those at Mt. Sinai who said "we don't want to go up the mountain into God's presence. Just find out what He wants and tell us what to do."


        Trust in God is commonly shown by Paul to be opposite to seeking actions in accord with the Jewish laws. If you are a Christian and you are willing to give up the benefits of the Spirit, then disregard the warning inherent in Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
        Last edited by mikewhitney; 04-22-2015, 07:52 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
          Yeah, no. We already know why the dietary laws were commanded, namely to set apart the Jews from the Gentiles surrounding them, just like most of the other ritual purity laws. It had nothing to do with morality.
          As I said, if we ought to obey God and God says we ought not to do something, then that is a moral command. Again if God says we ought to obey ritual purity laws then they it is moral command by definition. Purity laws were intended to teach a lesson about God's holiness, but understanding the lesson didn't make them unimportant to keep, rather it made them more important.

          I'd say that the laws were to set God's chosen people apart so that they would be a holy nation.

          Deuteronomy 7:6For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

          Those verse in 1 Peter are saying that what God once said to His chosen people now includes Gentiles:

          1 Peter 2:9-10 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

          Mark 7:18-23

          Eating does not defile someone, even if what you're eating happens to be pork, or shellfish. Under the new covenant, that which pollutes us are impure thoughts, not impure food.
          The topic of Mark 7 is about Pharisees considering eating normally clean food with unwashed hands to make it ceremonially unclean. The parallel account in Matthew 15:20 shows that at the end of the conversation, Jesus was still talking eating with unwashed hands, so the topic was only about a man-made ritual purity law and never switched to being about dietary laws. Furthermore, I find it highly unlikely that Jesus would criticize the Pharisees in Mark 7:6-9 for setting aside the commands of God only to do so himself a few verses later. On top of that, teaching against following the commands of God would have been in violation of Deuteronomy 13 and Jesus would have disqualified himself from being the Messiah. They most certainly would have tried to stone him for that, and for once would have had a legitimate reason, but I see no evidence that anyone understood him to mean that. Even in Peter's vision in Acts 10, he hadn't gotten the message that God's dietary laws were done away with. No, the point that Jesus was making in Mark 7:14-23 was simply that their concern for ritual purity was out of balance with their concern for moral purity.

          If you were "listening" you would see passages like Mark 7:18-23 and realize that your understanding of the purpose of the dietary laws are majorly flawed. And there's a difference between being conformed to the image of Christ and becoming a copy of Him.
          Except that Mark 7 doesn't even mention dietary laws. The goal of a disciple was to become a copy of their rabbi in how they thought and in how they obeyed the Torah and Jesus' disciples were no different. Jesus taught to obey the Torah both in word and by example and it certainly was included as part of all that he had taught them when he told them to go and make their own disciples. If we are disciples of Christ, then we should likewise do the same, and it is through faith and the leading of the Spirit that we are made to be more like Christ.

          1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

          Under the old covenant maybe.
          God is holy and His holiness didn't change between covenants, nor does His instructions for holy conduct.

          Except the dietary laws no longer have any effect on your holiness.
          Except that God would disagree. The authors of the NT quote or allude to the OT as many as 4,105 to establish their authority and to show that what they are saying doesn't deviate from it. With 1 Peter, it is no different, the verse is quoting the OT to establish that Gentiles should have a holy conduct and what it means to have a holy conduct. Does it really make any sense to you that the author would quote the OT to say that Gentiles should have a holy conduct and then turn around and say that Gentiles should have a conduct other than what God has already established as holy?
          "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Soyeung
            So the people were keeping God's feasts as instructed by and Paul was encouraging them not to be judged for keeping them by those who were promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body.
            Then why does it call them a shadow? Your interpretation is stupid.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
              Mark 7:18-23

              Eating does not defile someone, even if what you're eating happens to be pork, or shellfish. Under the new covenant, that which pollutes us are impure thoughts, not impure food.



              If you were "listening" you would see passages like Mark 7:18-23 and realize that your understanding of the purpose of the dietary laws are majorly flawed. And there's a difference between being conformed to the image of Christ and becoming a copy of Him.
              In fairness, seeing Mark 7:18-23 as an abrogation of dietary laws may be taking the passage out of context. The passage comes right after, and is part of, a discourse concerning ritual purity. The Pharisees were concerned with washing hands/cups so that any potential uncleanness on them would not be transmitted to their food right before consumption, an expansion of the Mosaic purity laws. In context, Jesus' statement may only be rejecting the Pharisees' expansion of purity laws, which He often does elsewhere.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                In fairness, seeing Mark 7:18-23 as an abrogation of dietary laws may be taking the passage out of context. The passage comes right after, and is part of, a discourse concerning ritual purity. The Pharisees were concerned with washing hands/cups so that any potential uncleanness on them would not be transmitted to their food right before consumption, an expansion of the Mosaic purity laws. In context, Jesus' statement may only be rejecting the Pharisees' expansion of purity laws, which He often does elsewhere.
                Context is always good, but Jesus' teaching here, and Mark's interpretation thereof, is so clearly expressed in more general and absolute terms that I would not reduce their meaning merely to this context alone.
                Last edited by robrecht; 05-04-2015, 10:36 AM.
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
                  I didn't say anything specifically about the moral component eating pork. Nevertheless, morality is about what we ought or ought not to do, so if we ought to obey God and ought not to eat pork, then that's all the moral component that there needs to be. The dietary laws invite us to ponder why they were commanded, but at the end of the day, God does not require us to understand why He commanded something before we trust and obey Him.

                  The dietary laws serve as an object lesson about separating the holy from the profane. Eating is one of our most common activities and God is teaching His chosen people to always be discerning about what we take into our bodies. Something is either pure or it is not and we should not pollute ourselves with the impure. The moral applications should be clear. Should we watch, listen, or do something? If Jesus were here, would he watch, listen, or do it? As his disciples, we should, by faith and through the leading of the Spirit, take steps toward becoming a copy of him both in how he thought and in how he acted in obedience to God as part of the process of sanctification. Keeping the dietary laws is part of what it means to be a holy nation, have a holy conduct, and to "be holy, for God is holy".

                  1 Peter 2:9-10 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

                  1 Peter 1:13-16 Therefore, preparing your minds for action,[a] and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”
                  The Kingdom of God is not about eating and drinking! Paul makes this point very clearly, even in the context of urging like-minded followers of Jesus' teaching not to present a stumbling block to those who still followed dietary restrictions as a matter of binding law.
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    Context is always good, but Jesus' teaching hear is clearly expressed in more general and absolute terms so I would not reduce their meaning merely to this context alone.
                    Even general and absolute terms can be bound by context (Psalm 82:6a comes to mind). I agree that Christians in general are not bound by the dietary laws, but Acts 9/15 are better foundations for arguing so IMO.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      Even general and absolute terms can be bound by context (Psalm 82:6a comes to mind). I agree that Christians in general are not bound by the dietary laws, but Acts 9/15 are better foundations for arguing so IMO.
                      I think you mean Acts 10, right? Mark and Luke present complementary perspectives so it doesn't much matter to me if one is considered a better basis for an argument. I would like to understand both of their perspectives as well as possible. I do not mean to imply that general and absolute terms CANNOT be limited by their context; I just don't think that Mark intends to do so here. Note, for example, Mark's repetition and expansion of the teaching to the disciples when they are alone and Mark's own intinterpretative gloss, that Jesus made all foods clean.
                      Last edited by robrecht; 05-04-2015, 11:49 AM.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                        I think you mean Acts 10, right?
                        Yes.
                        Mark and Luke present complementary perspectives so it doesn't much matter to me if one is considered a better basis for an argument. I would like to understand both of their perspectives as well as possible.
                        I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Acts is a completely different context.
                        I do not mean to imply that general and absolute terms CANNOT be limited by their context; I just don't think that Mark intends to do so here. Note, for example, Mark's repetition and expansion of the teaching to the disciples when they are alone and Mark's own intinterpretative gloss, that Jesus made all foods clean.
                        The interpretive gloss is still within the context of the passage. See also Mat. 15:20, a parallel passage, where Jesus' clarification can be considered analogous to Mark's interpretive gloss.
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                          Then why does it call them a shadow? Your interpretation is stupid.
                          They saw a shadow as something positive while we have translators who unhelpfully add words like "merely" that aren't in the original text. The OT is full of shadows that are meant to teach us valuable things and there is much that can be learned by studying God's Feasts.
                          "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            Context is always good, but Jesus' teaching here, and Mark's interpretation thereof, is so clearly expressed in more general and absolute terms that I would not reduce their meaning merely to this context alone.
                            There is much disagreement about the correct interpretation of Mark 7:19, but the context should quickly rule out the interpretation that has Jesus nullifying the dietary laws.

                            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            The Kingdom of God is not about eating and drinking! Paul makes this point very clearly, even in the context of urging like-minded followers of Jesus' teaching not to present a stumbling block to those who still followed dietary restrictions as a matter of binding law.
                            Romans 7:14 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

                            Deuteronomy 6:25 And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us.’

                            Ezekiel 36:27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

                            The dietary laws are part of God's instructions for having a righteous and holy conduct and the role of the Holy Spirit is to lead us in obedience to God's instructions. The Holy Spirit is not at odds with what God has commanded, so by interpreting Romans 7:14 to be about dietary laws you're making it contradict itself. The Kingdom of God involves living in obedience to Him.

                            The topic of Romans 14 is about disputable matters of opinion, not the commands of God, so God's dietary laws were not even discussed. Meat that had be sacrificed to idols was often sold on the market, so if someone didn't know for sure whether meat offered at community meals had been sacrifice to idols, they might be of the opinion that it was all unclean and choose to eat only vegetables (Romans 14:2). They were judging others others who did eat meat at a community meal and were in turn being resented (Romans 14:3). So it is these sorts of disputes about food and drink that Paul was saying that the Kingdom of God was not about.
                            "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                              I think you mean Acts 10, right? Mark and Luke present complementary perspectives so it doesn't much matter to me if one is considered a better basis for an argument. I would like to understand both of their perspectives as well as possible. I do not mean to imply that general and absolute terms CANNOT be limited by their context; I just don't think that Mark intends to do so here. Note, for example, Mark's repetition and expansion of the teaching to the disciples when they are alone and Mark's own intinterpretative gloss, that Jesus made all foods clean.
                              Mark 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

                              There is no interpretation by Mark without adding words that aren't there. Meats are being purged from the body, so this is not setting aside God's commands, especially just a few verses after Jesus criticized the Pharisees for doing the same thing.
                              Last edited by Soyeong; 05-04-2015, 03:06 PM.
                              "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                Yes.

                                I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Acts is a completely different context.
                                Precisely. Thus the perspectives of Mark and Luke are presented in complementary ways. They complement each other, but with essentially the same perspective. Mark recounts Jesus' teaching, first in conflict with the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem, then to the crowd, and then with a fuller explanation to the disciples who had not understood. Finally, Mark himself interprets the implication of Jesus' teaching for his contemporary readers, 'with the result that Jesus' words are rendering all foods clean'. What may not have been clear at the time of Jesus' disagreement with Jewish authorities and in teaching the crowd and disciples is nonetheless rendered clear by Mark for his readers. Luke does not recount or interpret this teaching from the earthly life of Jesus, but it is nonetheless made clear in a later vision to Peter and the other leaders in Jerusalem. The two stories are not parallel but complement each other with the same perspective. Thus one need not say that one is a better than the other. They are not the same, but neither are they contradictory. Rather complementary.

                                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                The interpretive gloss is still within the context of the passage.
                                Some try to translate the last part of Mk 7,19 as part of a direct quote of Jesus, but I think it is much better understood as an aside by Mark interpreting one of the implications of Jesus' words for Mark's readers, a participle modifying and interpreting the verb of Jesus speaking, not actually spoken by Jesus. Thus, some call it an interpretive gloss, ie, Mark's comment to his readers about the words of Jesus.

                                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                See also Mat. 15:20, a parallel passage, where Jesus' clarification can be considered analogous to Mark's interpretive gloss.
                                Mt 15,20 is parallel to Mk 7,22 (7,23 in some texts). Matthew completely leaves aside Mark's interpretive comment in 7,19, preferring instead to tie Jesus' private teaching to the disciples back to the original context of Jesus' dispute with the Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes by adding to Mt 15,20 a phrase not found in Mark ('but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man'). Matthew is generally understood to be closer to the original Jewish context of the discussion where this issue of the law and rabbinic tradition would still be relevant to his audience, whereas Mark is speaking more directly to his community, which is generally understood as having a more significant Gentile component.
                                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                                35 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                                4 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                                10 responses
                                119 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                                14 responses
                                71 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                                13 responses
                                60 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X