The way to believe in God's nature is by seeing the laws that He has instructed and the way to testify about His nature is by obeying them. For example, the way to believe that God is good is by seeing that He has commanded good laws and the way to testify about God's goodness is by doing good works in obedience to them, which is why our good works bring glory to Him (Matthew 5:16). On their other hand, if God had instead commanded things like to commit murder and adultery, then it would be incorrect to believe in the goodness of God. The same is true about other aspects of God's nature, soo the set of laws that the God of Israel chose to give paints us a profile picture of His identity and if someone is following a different set of laws, then the God that they believe in does not have the same identify as the God of Israel. For example, in 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy as God is holy, which is a quote form Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, so by following those instructions we are testifying about God's holiness and if someone refuses to follow those laws, then they are testifying that the God that they follow is not holy and therefore does not have the same identity as the God of Israel. As representatives of the God of Israel we should live in a way that testifies about His nature by obeying the Mosaic Law.
Testifying about the God of Israel
- Thread starter Soyeong
- Start date
EarlyActs
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,485
- Reaction score
- 406
- Points
- 83
Some laws were so particular that they don't have this effect.
The way you have written this is predisposed against murder and adultery, which is good, but a person wants to know what you thought before looking at the Law which predisposed you. A clue is in Rom 2.
The way you have written this is predisposed against murder and adultery, which is good, but a person wants to know what you thought before looking at the Law which predisposed you. A clue is in Rom 2.
So when He commands baptism in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit we believe the trinity? One God: nature or essence
Three persons
Yes?
So not eating shrimp shows us something about God's nature?
Shrimp were good to eat from Adam to Moses, not good to eat from Moses to Christ, and good to eat from Christ to the end of time.
So what does that tell us about God's nature, and how is it testifying about his nature not to eat them?
Contraire. . .you haven't come to terms with the fact that things are what God says they are, if he says murder and adultery are good, then they are good.
If he commands to kill all the men, women, children and infants in Canaan, then that is good.
Last edited:
Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, so that was the sum of what he instructed his disciples to teach to the nations.
Indeed, in 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that which includes:
Leviticus 11:44-45 For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground. 45 For I am the Lord who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.”
Clearly those verses connect refraining from eating unclean animals with God's eternal holiness, which is an aspect of His eternal nature.
In Genesis 7:2, Noah was given instructions for what to do with clean and unclean animals without being told how to tell the difference, and in 8:20, he knew to offer a clean animal, so he must have already been given instructions in that regard. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the Mosaic Law, so Christ did not change that. The Bible should not be interpreted as God flip flopping back and forth about whether eating unclean animals is an abomination against His eternal holiness.
It is contradictory to think that God is just while thinking that He commands things that are unjust.
And clearly, as before the Mosaic covenant (Ge 1:29-30) and as after the Mosaic covenant (Ro 14:14 , 20) when those foods were given by God as good for all mankind to eat, their prohibition under the Mosaic covenant, as in defilement by sexual intercourse (Lev 15:16-18, Ex 19:15, 1 Sa 2:14) and childbirth (Lev 12:2, 15:19), was ceremonial defilement, not moral defilement, and were not related to God's holiness, but only God's patterns/types to show the meaning of spiritual defilement, as the animal sacrifices were types of the human sacrifice of Christ.
Clearly, shrimp being clean from Adam to Moses, unclean from Moses to Christ, and clean again from Christ to the end of time is not about defilement by shrimp, but is about foods made temporarily unclean under the Mosaic covenant to pattern the meaning of spiritual defilement by sin. Not to see this is spiritual blindness to the NT gospel.
Those regulations applied to sacrifices only from Noah to Moses.
Oh, wow. . .then you do not know/believe the NT testimony of the apostle, and have just entered contra-NT gospel territory.
Mk 7:18-19 - " 'Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean? For it doesn't go into his heart but his stomach, and then out of his body.' (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)"
See Peter's vision in Ac 10:9-16.
Wow.
Unbelief of the NT is in no position to pontificate on interpreting the Bible.
Last edited:
God's holiness is eternal, so the way to be holy as God is holy is therefore also eternal, so it should not make sense to you think interpret the Bible as saying that the way to be holy as God is holy flip-flops back and forth.
In Romans 14, the topic is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God, so it should not make sense to you to interpret anything in that chapter or in the rest of the Bible as speaking against following God, but rather you should be quicker to think that you must have completely misunderstood the Bible.
Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws and there is no example in the Bible of someone acting morally while disobeying any of God's laws. Saying that some of God's laws have ceremonial aspects does not establish that we can be acting morally while disobeying them, nor do I see any reason to think that it can ever be moral to disobey God. Every legislator give laws according to what they think ought to be done, so to suggest that some of God's laws are not moral laws is to suggest that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when He gave those laws and therefore to claim to have greater moral knowledge than God.
The fact that Noah had been given instructions in regard to clean and unclean animals prior to Genesis 7:2 disproves your claim that shrimp was clean from Adam to Moses, and does not give you any basis to claim that those regulations were only from Noah to Moses.
In know and believe the NT testimony of the apostles and I am not speaking against it, but rather I am just speaking against your extremely flawed interpretation of it. In Acts 10:9-16, Peter could have obeyed God's command against eating unclean animals and God's command in His vision by simply killing and eating one of the clean animals, so the key to correctly understanding his vision is understanding why he refused to do what the Mosaic Law permitted him to do. It should be noted that Peter did not just object by saying hat he had never eaten anything that was unclean, but also objected by saying that he had never eaten anything common, and it should be noted that God never rebuked Peter for his use of the word "unclean", but only rebuked him for his use of the word "common", yet you interpret Acts 10:9-16 and Matthew 7:18-19 as though they had said "unclean" instead of "common". In other words, Peter correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and correctly knew that he was not supposed to eat them in obedience to God's command against doing that, but he incorrectly identified the clean animals as common and incorrectly declined to eat them in disobedience to God's command to kill and eat. Peter interpreted his vision three times as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles without saying a word about now being able to eat unclean animals, so his vision had nothing to do with a change in their status. Yet you ignore what was said in his vision and how he interpreted it and reinterpret it as though it makes perfect sense to interpret the Bible as speaking against obeying God and you are wowed when I object to such a blatant misuse of the Bible.
Who are God’s chosen people today?
Non-responsive to my points.
The children of the promise.
The children of the sacraments. Oh I agree!
Acts 2:38:39 this promise from ez 36:25-27
Thanks
Indeed, your post was non-responsive to my points while my post interacted with your points to explain why they were wrong.
Children of the promise, or in other words, those who are obeying the Mosaic Law in accordance with its weightier matters in accordance with Acts 2:38-39 and Ezekiel 36:25-27.
In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so renting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom, which is in accordance with him being sent in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-26), which is the Gospel that was made known in advance to Abraham in accordance with the promise (Galatians 3:8), which he spread to Gentiles in Haran in accordance with the promise (Genesis 12:1-5).
in Genesis 18:19, God knew Abraham that he would teaching his children and those of his household to walk in HIs way by doing righteousness and justice that the Lord may bring to him all that He has promised. In Genesis 26:4-5, God will multiply Abraham's children as the stars in the heaven, to his children He will give all of these lands, and through his children all of the nations of the earth will be blessed because Abraham heard God's voice and guarded His charge, His commandments, His statutes, and His laws. In Deuteronomy 30:16, if the children of Abraham will love God with all of their heart by walking in His way in obedience to His commandments, statutes, and laws, then they will live and multiply and God will bless them in the land that they go to posses. So the promise was made to Abraham and came about because he walked in God's way in obedience to His law, he taught his children and those of his household to do that in accordance with spreading the Gospel of the Kingdom, and because they did that.
In Psalms 119:1-3, the Mosaic Law is how to children of Israel knew how to be blessed by walking in God's way, and in John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works as him, so the way that the children of Abraham are multiplied and are a blessing to the Gentiles in accordance with inheriting the promise through faith is by turning the Gentiles from their wickedness and teaching them to walk in God's way in obedience to the Mosaic Law in accordance with spreading the Gospel of the Kingdom, and those who are doing this are the children of the promise who are testifying about the God of Israel.
False. . .
The following is my response refuting your assertion, and you've made no response directly interacting with the contradictions of your assertions which it presents:
"And clearly, as before the Mosaic covenant (Ge 1:29-30) and as after the Mosaic covenant (Ro 14:14 , 20) when those foods were given by God as good for all mankind to eat, their prohibition under the Mosaic covenant, as in defilement by sexual intercourse (Lev 15:16-18, Ex 19:15, 1 Sa 2:14) and childbirth (Lev 12:2, 15:19), was ceremonial defilement, not moral defilement, and were not related to God's holiness, but only God's patterns/types to show the meaning of spiritual defilement, as the animal sacrifices were types of the human sacrifice of Christ.
Clearly, shrimp being clean from Adam to Moses, unclean from Moses to Christ, and clean again from Christ to the end of time is not about defilement by shrimp, but is about foods made temporarily unclean under the Mosaic covenant to pattern the meaning of spiritual defilement by sin. Not to see this is spiritual blindness to the NT gospel."
Promise of God:
Sacred oath:
A promise or sacred oath made by God is called a sacrament:
A sacrament is also the fruit of a sacrifice, grace or the merits of Christ are fruit of His sacrifice on the cross!
Heb 8:8 better sacraments
Lk 1:72
Acts 2:39 referring to ez 36:25-27
Acts 1:4
Acts 2:33
Acts 13:23
Acts 13:32
Acts 26:6
Acts 26:7
Rom 1:2
2 Tim 1:1-2
2 pet 1:4
1 Jn 2:25 and many more!
Sacraments instituted by Christ for the salvation of souls!
It’s not a do it yourself religion!
It’s not a bible study!
It’s a covenant!
Not by “faith alone”
“Faith alone” aint biblical!
You may think “Accept Jesus Christ as you personal Lord and savior” is biblical but there is no such verse in your bible!
Faith and the sacraments in the church founded by the authority Christ on Peter and the apostles is biblical! Matt 16:18-19 Jn 20:21 eph 2:20
Faith and baptism is the biblical initiation into the new covenant and member is Christ and His holy church!
Psalm 51 Ez 36:25-27 Mk 16:16 acts 8:36-38
You cannot enter a covenant by “faith alone” must be a ritual outward sign!
2 Peter 1:11
For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
The Christian sacrament of baptism is the Initiation into the new covenant and must be ministered to you by the apostles!
Faith and baptism! Mk 16:16 acts 8:36-38
Merits of christ’s passion, death, and precious blood are applied in the sacraments! Jn 1:16
Colossians 1:20
And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Matt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Rom 3:24
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
1 pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
Heb 10:22
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Acts 2:47
Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Romans 5:5
And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
You seem to seem to be deliberately misunderstanding the position of faith alone. Do you affirm the truth of Romans 3:27?
