What does the Old Testament have to do with Jesus Christ?

[Arial]

While I agree that we can be confident in what Paul said, we should not be confident in common interpretations of Paul that make him out to be a false prophet. For example, Paul is commonly interpreted as contradicting what God spoke in Deuteronomy 14 in regard to refraining from eating unclean animals.

I agree with @Eleanor in post #20.

 

[Soyeong]

Ro 14:14 is pretty clear to me.

"As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself.
But if anyone regards something as unclean, the for him it is unclean."

I agree with @Eleanor in post #20.

Deuteronomy 13 does not leave any room for us to consider anyone who speaks against obeying what God has commanded to be a true prophet, so if you think that Paul did that in Romans 14:14, then your two options are to either concede that you must have misunderstood that verse (my position) or to conclude that Paul was a false prophet, but either way followers of Christ should follow his example of refraining from eating unclean animals.

 

[Arial]

Deuteronomy 13 does not leave any room for us to consider anyone who speaks against obeying what God has commanded to be a true prophet, so if you think that Paul did that in Romans 14:14, then your two options are to either concede that you must have misunderstood that verse or to conclude that Paul was a false prophet, but either way followers of Christ should follow his example of refraining from eating unclean animals.

Or----you can concede that you misunderstand Romans 14:14 and thought that when he said no foods were unclean that he meant some foods were unclean.

 

[Soyeong]

Or----you can concede that you misunderstand Romans 14:14 and thought that when he said no foods were unclean that he meant some foods were unclean.

That is not my understanding of the verse. However, regardless of whether or not my understanding of that verse is correct, if you want to insist that the correct understanding of that verse is that Paul was in violation of Deuteronomy 13, then according to what God instructed you should consider him to be a false prophet and not consider anything that he said to be authoritative. If you want to insist that Paul was a true prophet, then you should be the first to object to how you are interpreting Romans 14:14.

Similarly, Psalms 14:1 says “there is no God”, so if someone understood that verse as denying the existence of God, then they should have the self-awareness to either conclude that they have misunderstood that verse such as by taking it out of context or conclude that the verse is false.

 

[Arial]

That is not my understanding of the verse. However, regardless of whether or not my understanding of that verse is correct, if you want to insist that the correct understanding of that verse is that Paul was in violation of Deuteronomy 13, then according to what God instructed you should consider him to be a false prophet and not consider anything that he said to be authoritative. If you want to insist that Paul was a true prophet, then you should be the first to object to how you are interpreting Romans 14:14.

Similarly, Psalms 14:1 says “there is no God”, so if someone understood that verse as denying the existence of God, then they should have the self-awareness to either conclude that they have misunderstood that verse such as by taking it out of context or conclude that the verse is false.

The apostles also said that Christ fulfilled all of the OT law, both in the legal code and the moral teachings that were behind the law. Hebrews tells us that the old order was done away with as to the legal code because it all pointed to Christ who made it obsolete--no longer necessary. So, Paul was saying that all foods were clean but those who know this, (and he said himself he was one of them) should not eat them in front of those who still thought they were unclean, so as to make them stumble. To not judge them and cause them to go against their conscience. And he was not violating Deut 13 which says nothing about unclean foods.

 

[Josheb]

That is not my understanding of the verse. However, regardless of whether or not my understanding of that verse is correct, if you want to insist that the correct understanding of that verse is that Paul was in violation of Deuteronomy 13, then according to what God instructed you should consider him to be a false prophet and not consider anything that he said to be authoritative. If you want to insist that Paul was a true prophet, then you should be the first to object to how you are interpreting Romans 14:14.

Neither Peter nor Paul were not in violation of the Law because the Law was changed when Christ fulfilled it. When a new covenant is established the older one(s) become obsolete. Paul (as well as you, me, and @Arial) had been made a minister (priest) of the new covenant. As a Pharisee, Paul had been made a teacher of the Law (not a priest, since he was not a Levite), but God had made him a priest. He was a former Pharisee. He was formerly a Pharisee.

He was also formerly a Jew because there are no Jews or Gentiles in Christ!

That old division between Jew and Gentile was rendered obsolete when God destroyed the dividing wall, making the two one, and reconciled the two to Himself.

As far as Romans 14:14 goes, the point Paul is asserting is what Jesus had already taught: it is not what goes into a person that makes him/her unclean. Paul was addressing disputes that had arisen among the early Christians when the Jews would say eating foods offered to idols was unclean, or that foods prohibited by the Law were unclean. Paul had already argued the Law and its dietary prohibitions were obsolete and an idol is nothing. In other words, Paul had cut out the foundation of the both the Judaizers' protests and that of the goy boast of liberty. Paul reframed the entire debate by stating everything they did, whether it was eating food or honoring special days was to be done to honor God (and not judge others as if the judge were Judge). The rule by which both (former) Jew and (former) Gentile were to abide was you may eat anything you like as long as 1) you do so honoring God and 2) you don't judge those who do otherwise.

This is critically important because Jews were (and still are) taught to judge themselves and others. They judge themselves by the Law and judge EVERYONE else simply by the fact they are not Jews. It's the reverse of anti-Semitism because its pro-Semitism. Semitism becomes the measure of a man, not Jesus. When God summons us to stand before Him on Sentencing Day He will NOT be asking anyone, "Are you Jewish?" We'll all have to give an account for every word spoken and every deed done, but it's not an interrogation. There are no questions. It is a pass or fail test based in sight.

Are you and I covered in blood or not?

Have we been washed clean, washed white in the blood of Christ or not? Potato chips and carrots versus pork rinds and shrimp will not matter. We're not judged on the contents of our stomach. No one ever was. The laws of the Law were simply variations on a common theme:

The righteous live by faith.

.

Similarly, Psalms 14:1 says “there is no God”, so if someone understood that verse as denying the existence of God, then they should have the self-awareness to either conclude that they have misunderstood that verse such as by taking it out of context or conclude that the verse is false.

?????

Why bring up Ps. 14:1? Who says Ps. 14:1 denies the existence of God? The verse affirms the existence of God! It calls those who deny God's existence, "fools"! Fools deny the existence of God. Why would fools have any self-awareness, much less the self-awareness of misunderstanding scripture about the God they deny exists? Why would someone who takes the verse out of context be considered germane to this discussion?

I think you're better off sticking to Romans 14:14 and all that scripture as a whole says about that verse. Paul knows he is confronting the Law he used to obey. Paul also knows he is arguing the limits of the Law and instructing the legalists in the congregation not to be legalistic.

Legalism kills.

Paul is writing about the old covenant compared to the new and he knows he is doing so. Paul has already stated many things about the Law earlier in the Romans epistle (the Law if good, the Law is spiritual, the Law identifies sin, the Law must be obeyed entirely, the Law cannot be entirely obeyed by an already sinning person, the Law condemns, etc.).

 

[Soyeong]

The apostles also said that Christ fulfilled all of the OT law, both in the legal code and the moral teachings that were behind the law.

"To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will (as made known by the law) to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo), so Jesus was one of many who fulfilled the law by teaching how to correctly obey it.

Hebrews tells us that the old order was done away with as to the legal code because it all pointed to Christ who made it obsolete--no longer necessary.

A priesthood led by God's Word made flesh does involve departing from God's Word. In Deuteronomy 30, it forms the basis for the New Covenant by prophesying about a time when the Israelites will return from exile, God would circumcise their hearts, and they would return to obedience to His law, which is what Jeremiah 31:33 and Ezekiel 36:26-27 are in regard to where God will put His law in our minds and write it on our hearts, and where God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead us in obedience to His law. Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey God's law by word and by example and the reason why he established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or so that we could continue to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather it still involves following God's law. We should live in a way that points to Christ by following his example of obedience to God's law rather than a way that points away from him.

All of God's laws are made with the same God with the same character traits and therefore the same eternally and cumulatively valid instructions for how to know him by being a doer of His character traits. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), therefore all of God's righteous laws are also eternal (Psalms 119:160), and the only way to do away with a set of instructions for how to know Him by being a doer of His righteousness would be by first doing away with His righteousness. It was in accordance with God's righteousness to be a doer of charity before God made any covenants with man, so a covenant that instructs to be a doer of charity becoming obsolete does change the fact that is is in accordance with God's righteousness to be a doer a charity, but rather that is eternally and cumulatively valid. In Galatians 3:16-19, a new covenant does not nullify the promises of old covenants that have already been ratified, so again God's covenants are cumulatively valid. One thing can only make another thing obsolete to the extent that it has cumulative functionality, so a computer makes a typewriter obsolete but does not make a plow obsolete, which mean that if the the New Covenant involves doing something different that were not cumulative with the Mosaic Covenant, then it could not make it obsolete. The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it could be replaced by the New Covenant is if it is cumulative with it, so the New Covenant still involves following God's law (Hebrews 8:10) plus it is cumulatively based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6).

So, Paul was saying that all foods were clean but those who know this, (and he said himself he was one of them) should not eat them in front of those who still thought they were unclean, so as to make them stumble. To not judge them and cause them to go against their conscience.

What the Bible says in regard to following the teachings or opinions of men should not be applied as if it was speaking in regard to the commandment of God.

And he was not violating Deut 13 which says nothing about unclean foods.

Deuteronomy 13 says that anyone who speaks against obeying God's law is a false prophet who is not speaking for him, which includes speaking against Deuteronomy 14.

 

[Soyeong]

Neither Peter nor Paul were not in violation of the Law because the Law was changed when Christ fulfilled it. When a new covenant is established the older one(s) become obsolete. Paul (as well as you, me, and @Arial) had been made a minister (priest) of the new covenant.

Please see my previous post that address these issues.

As a Pharisee, Paul had been made a teacher of the Law (not a priest, since he was not a Levite), but God had made him a priest. He was a former Pharisee. He was formerly a Pharisee.

Paul never stopped identifying as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), so he was never a former Pharisee.

He was also formerly a Jew because there are no Jews or Gentiles in Christ!

Paul also never stopped identifying as a Jew (Acts 21:39, 22:3), so he was never a former Jew. The Bible clearly refers to those who are Jews, Gentiles, men, women, slaves, and free, so Paul was not denying the reality of these categories, but rather he was denying that they gave someone a higher status when it comes to being in Christ.

That old division between Jew and Gentile was rendered obsolete when God destroyed the dividing wall, making the two one, and reconciled the two to Himself.

We are not all the same part of the body, but rather we can be different parts of one body.

As far as Romans 14:14 goes, the point Paul is asserting is what Jesus had already taught: it is not what goes into a person that makes him/her unclean. Paul was addressing disputes that had arisen among the early Christians when the Jews would say eating foods offered to idols was unclean, or that foods prohibited by the Law were unclean. Paul had already argued the Law and its dietary prohibitions were obsolete and an idol is nothing. In other words, Paul had cut out the foundation of the both the Judaizers' protests and that of the goy boast of liberty. Paul reframed the entire debate by stating everything they did, whether it was eating food or honoring special days was to be done to honor God (and not judge others as if the judge were Judge). The rule by which both (former) Jew and (former) Gentile were to abide was you may eat anything you like as long as 1) you do so honoring God and 2) you don't judge those who do otherwise.

It is important to distinguish between what the Bible says in regard to the teachings and opinions of men and what it says in regard to the commandments of God in order to avoid making the error of applying what he said against the teachings and opinions of men as if he had been speaking against the commandments of God. In Roman 14:1, the topic of the chapter 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 nothing in the chapter should be interpreted in a way that turns it against following God. For example, in Romans 14:2-3, they were judging and resenting each based on whether someone chose to eat only vegetables even though God did not command to do that, so you should not be inserting the commands of God into Romans 14.

Likewise, in Mark 7:1-13, Jesus criticized Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so he was making a stark contrast between the two, but then you are taking what he said in regard to the traditions of the elders and are applying it as though it makes perfect sense to interpret Mark 7:14-19 as Jesus turning around and even more hypocritically did was he just finished criticizing the Pharisees as being hypocrites for doing by setting aside the commands of God. You should have the self-awareness to recognize that either your understanding of Mark 7:14-19 is incorrect or Jesus was a false prophet according to Deuteronomy 13.

While the Greek words "akathartos" and "koinos" both refer to a type of defilement, then Bible never uses them interchangeably, so you making the error of reading where the Bible uses the word "koinos" as if it had used "akathartos" instead is part of the reason why you are making the error of taking things that were only said in regard to the teachings and opinions of men and applying them as though they were said in regard to the commandments of God.

This is critically important because Jews were (and still are) taught to judge themselves and others. They judge themselves by the Law and judge EVERYONE else simply by the fact they are not Jews. It's the reverse of anti-Semitism because its pro-Semitism. Semitism becomes the measure of a man, not Jesus. When God summons us to stand before Him on Sentencing Day He will NOT be asking anyone, "Are you Jewish?" We'll all have to give an account for every word spoken and every deed done, but it's not an interrogation. There are no questions. It is a pass or fail test based in sight.

Are you and I covered in blood or not?

Have we been washed clean, washed white in the blood of Christ or not? Potato chips and carrots versus pork rinds and shrimp will not matter. We're not judged on the contents of our stomach. No one ever was. The laws of the Law were simply variations on a common theme:

The righteous live by faith.

I said nothing to suggest that the criteria for judgement is whether someone is Jewish.

In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession where zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law (Acts 21:20). In Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is God's law, saying that God's laws don't matter is the opposite of the righteous living by faith.

?????


Why bring up Ps. 14:1? Who says Ps. 14:1 denies the existence of God? The verse affirms the existence of God! It calls those who deny God's existence, "fools"! Fools deny the existence of God. Why would fools have any self-awareness, much less the self-awareness of misunderstanding scripture about the God they deny exists? Why would someone who takes the verse out of context be considered germane to this discussion?

I did not say that Psalms 14:1 denies the existence of God or anything about fools having self-awareness, but rather I used it as example of someone obviously taking a verse out of context where they should have the self-awareness to recognize that they either must have misunderstood the verse to deny its truth, which is similar to Romans 14:14, where it is good to have the self-awareness that they have either misunderstood the verse or should deny its truth.

I think you're better off sticking to Romans 14:14 and all that scripture as a whole says about that verse. Paul knows he is confronting the Law he used to obey. Paul also knows he is arguing the limits of the Law and instructing the legalists in the congregation not to be legalistic.

Legalism kills.

Paul is writing about the old covenant compared to the new and he knows he is doing so. Paul has already stated many things about the Law earlier in the Romans epistle (the Law if good, the Law is spiritual, the Law identifies sin, the Law must be obeyed entirely, the Law cannot be entirely obeyed by an already sinning person, the Law condemns, etc.).

If it is legalism for God to graciously give us His law and it is legalism for Jesus to set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to it, then legalisms good, but that is not what I think legalism means. Paul never stopped living in obedience to God's law (Acts 21:20-24, 24:14) nor was he confronting it. Paul was a servant of God, therefore He never spoke against obeying what He has commanded. The New Covenant still involves following God's law (Jeremiah 31:33).

 

[Eleanor]

Deuteronomy 13 does not leave any room for us to consider anyone who speaks against obeying what God has commanded

So you deny the NC apostolic teaching (Ro 14:1/b]) of Christ in favor of the obsolete (Heb 8:13) OC.

That explains a lot. . .about a lot.[/u]

 

[Josheb]

Please see my previous post that address these issues.

Done.

All that commentary is also incorrect. Deuteronomy 30 is superseded by both Genesis 15 and Christ. Furthermore. Passages like Deuteronomy 28 make it very clear restoration is only one of the options God promises. Destruction is another. The promises of destruction are just as everlasting as the promises of life and the promises of restoration. No one gets to be selective and say, "Only the promises of restoration are everlasting" because ALL the promises are everlasting, including those promising total destruction. Cue up Deuteronomy 28 in an online Bible and Cntrl-F (Search) the word "destroy." You'll see God promised destruction seven times.

Galatians 6:7-8
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a person sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will reap destruction from the flesh, but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit.

Rotting, decaying, death and destruction is what happens when disobedience is indulged. God made a covenant with Abraham and his descendants. Paul explains not all who are descended from Abraham are Abraham's descendants. Those descended only by the flesh are not among the covenant descendants. ants are not descendants of the flesh. It is those who are descendants of promise (like those listed in Hebrews 11 and the new covenant Gentiles) who are the covenant members.

Deuteronomy 30:15
See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, as well as death and disaster.

God promised life for obedience and death for disobedience in Deuteronomy 30. The Jews repeatedly disobeyed God and broke the covenant. God was patient with them multiple times, even though He was not required to be so due to the covenant. He could have wiped them all off the face of the earth the first time, the second time, anytime they broke the covenant. He was patient and long suffering. In the New Testament He reveals that was for the sake of the elect. They were judged to be covenant breakers in Ezekiel and the prophet Jeremiah declared a new covenant would be made with both Israel and Hosea made it clear that would include a people who'd not previously been God's people.

Romans 9:25
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory - even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’ And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

Jesus declared the house of the Pharisees (and by extension the Jews) desolate. Entering Jerusalem, he found the house of God infested with rot and disease and in obedience to the Law, he cleaned it out. It was supposed to have remained empty for seven days before being inspected again to determine whether it would remain standing or be destroyed. He returned the next day to find it re-infested. Through that one single day of repeated trials, he suffered the disobedience of the Jews all the way from their leaders down through the commoner. He finally declared the house desolate and sentenced it to destruction. The house of Israel was desolate and would be destroyed. Destroyed, not restored.

So do not be selective with your reading of Deuteronomy 30. The promises of destruction are just as permanent as the promises of life and restoration. Bloodline Jews did not keep God's covenant. They were eventually declared covenant breakers, and the promised sentence was meted out.

1 Corinthians 1:23-24
...we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

To this very day the gospel remains a stumbling block for the Jews. Only among those who are called - whether they be Jew or Gentile - is the power and wisdom of God known, understood, and become life-giving.

Paul never stopped identifying as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), so he was never a former Pharisee.

Yep. And his being a Pharisee was later included in his "former way of life in Judaism."

Paul also never stopped identifying as a Jew (Acts 21:39, 22:3), so he was never a former Jew.

Whole scripture proves otherwise.

Philippians 3:2-7
2Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; 3for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and take pride in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh, 4although I myself could boast as having confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he is confident in the flesh, I have more reason: 5circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. 7But whatever things were gain to me, these things I have counted as loss because of Christ.

You've been selective with scripture again. Paul did not stop teaching the Law, nor being a teacher of the Law, but there are no Pharisees in Christianity. Jesus described the Pharisees as white-washed tombs. Paul was probably among those in the audience when Jesus said those words. He was probably among those who at that day's end had decided to murder Jesus before the Passover.

The Bible clearly refers to those who are Jews, Gentiles, men, women, slaves, and free,

Not quite. Only those in Christ are free. Jews for whom the gospel is a stumbling block are not free. They remain dead in sin and, as covenant breakers God will mete out the everlasting promise of destruction, not restoration.

so Paul was not denying the reality of these categories, but rather he was denying that they gave someone a higher status when it comes to being in Christ.

Whole scripture proves otherwise.

We are not all the same part of the body, but rather we can be different parts of one body.

Read that again because you've just contradicted yourself. Different parts of the same body, not two different bodies.

It is important to distinguish between what the Bible says in regard to the teachings and opinions of men and what it says in regard to the commandments of God in order to avoid making the error of applying what he said against the teachings and opinions of men as if he had been speaking against the commandments of God.

I completely agree. The problem is you've been very selective with scripture and not read any text you've cited in the context of whole scripture. AND, furthermore, when someone (@Arial or I) brings up relevant scripture you do not take it in and measure the selective use of scripture by whole scripture. You do not practice what you preach with very much consistency. What you've done here in this thread could justly be called Judaization. Simply put, Christianity is not Judaism. Christianity is built upon Tanakh, not Judaism. Folks (Christians and non-Christians) get that wrong all the time. Judaization does not measure the OT by the NT. It does not believe the newer revelations explain the older ones. Judaization attempts to reverse that order and both Jesus and Paul in particular repudiated that practice. By the time Jesus showed up to preach the Jews had made a mess of Tanakh.

So it is, in fact, very important you correctly distinguish what the whole Bible teaches and not just the selective portions you've been taught by men to use.

The one single point we are currently discussing is...

Neither Peter nor Paul were not in violation of the Law because the Law was changed when Christ fulfilled it. When a new covenant is established the older one(s) become obsolete. Paul (as well as you, me, and @Arial) had been made a minister (priest) of the new covenant. As a Pharisee, Paul had been made a teacher of the Law (not a priest, since he was not a Levite), but God had made him a priest. He was a former Pharisee. He was formerly a Pharisee.

You disagreed and attempted to disprove that but Post #28 does not stand up to the measure of whole scripture. You post verse X but verses Y and Z disprove your rendering of X. Deuteronomy 30 contains promises of death, not only life.


This is very important because the practice of "onlyism," occurs quite often. Onlyism exists anytime a verse or passage is read and thought to include an "only" where none is stated. The most commonly abused verse is 1 John 3:4.

1 John 3:4
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

That is what the verse states. What it does NOT state is...

Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is [only] lawlessness.


But there exists a huge pile of Christians who wrongly think the Law is the only measure of sin. There is a ginormous pile of Jews, Messianic Jews, Zionist Christians, Dispensationalist Christians, Judaizing Christians who think Deuteronomy 30 guarantees an eternal disposition for bloodline Jews. There is no "only" in 1 John 3:4. There is no "only" in Deuteronomy 30, either. The promises of death and destruction are just as everlasting as the promises of life and restoration.

The new covenant makes the old covenant obsolete. Deuteronomy 30 does not trump Hebrews 8. Post 28 misuses Deuteronomy 30 because it neglects the promise of death. The only salvation in the old covenant exists in the fact the promises made to Abraham were also made to Christ. EVERYTHING God promised Abraham, Abe's promised seed (which is Jesus, not Israel), and Abe's descendants (of promise, not flesh) was Christological. The inheritance of eternal life does not come through the Law. It comes through the one about whom the Law testified.


Whole scripture.

NOT the teachings of men.

 

[Soyeong]

So you deny the NC apostolic teaching (Ro 14:1/b]) of Christ in favor of the obsolete (Heb 8:13) OC.

That explains a lot. . .about a lot.[/u]

No, I do not reject the teachings of the Apostles, but rather I consider them to be servants of God, which is why I think that they never taught against obeying what God has commanded and why I reject interpretations of what they taught that make them out to be false prophets. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, if you think they taught against obeying what God has commanded, then you should be quicker to disregard everything that they taught than to disregard anything that God has commanded.

Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of God by word and by example and the reason why he established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or so that we could continue to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following God’s law (Hebrews 8:7-10).

 

[Josheb]

No, I do not reject the teachings of the Apostles, but rather I consider them to be servants of God, which is why I think that they never taught against obeying what God has commanded and why I reject interpretations of what they taught that make them out to be false prophets......

What if.....

The original understanding of God's commands was incorrect? What if portions of scripture are a record of mistakes made by religious leaders?

For example, the Hebrews believed they were the promised seed of Abraham. They were a biological "seed," but not the "promised" seed. Their understanding was reasonable given the fact they lacked further revelation explaining what God originally meant but once the meaning of that promise is explained any and all beliefs contrary to the explanation must be changed and/or, wherever appropriate, discarded. Abraham had many seeds, but only one of them was the promised seed.

There is a firm foundation for this in the gospels. Every time Jesus says, "You have heard it said a, b, and c ," but I tell you x, y, and z are the correct understanding," that is an example of Jesus correcting some manmade interpretation. Jesus was not teaching "against obeying what God commanded," as you put it. In point of fact, nearly everything Jesus (and the New Testament writers) taught can be found in the Old Testament. It was not that Jesus (or Paul, or Peter, etc.) taught something new or different, but that what he taught was the true, original meaning of God's commands, not the mistaken interpretations of the Jewish leaders.

For example, In Judaism, the temple was called the house of God and it was believed God dwelt there, at least on the occasion of the sacrifices, similar to when He would come to Moses in the tabernacle (sometimes for long periods of time). In the New Testament we find an update: God does not dwell in houses made of stone. Instead, we find a newer revelation explaining those who believe in His resurrected Son are God's temple and the temple of stone was and always should have been understood as a foreshadowing of Christ. There were indications in the Old Testament indicating the truth of newer revelation, but they were not as explicit as Stephen's declaration. For example, God made it clear that stones used to build an altar should never be shaped, and never had tools applied to them to shape them. The minute the Old Testament states the stones used in the temple were hewn without the use of tools the Jewish reader should have instantly understood the latter command was obeyed, but the former was not. It does not matter that God allowed the disobedience and used the stone temple for His purposes despite the disobedience. The fact remains every hewn stone in the temple's altar was an act of disobedience right in the heart of the temple. The problem is not in the scriptural record. The problem is in what Jewish leaders did with the commands. Have you ever considered theirs was the man-made teaching that went against obeying what God had commanded? Have you ever considered theirs was the man-made teaching that went against obeying what God had commanded, and the New Testament writers were instructed by God to set the record straight and correct centuries of Jewish error? The Jews, after all, got more than just the temple wrong.

• They misunderstood the covenant, incorrectly thinking on the good promises were salient and they could rely solely on the promises of restoration every time they got punished for worshipped idols.
• They misunderstood their own purpose as God's people. They were supposed to be a light to all the other nations rather than isolate around bloodline,
• The misunderstood the priesthood and the civil rule, which were supposed to be unity and not disparate. They separated the religious rule from the civil rule and resisted all attempts by God to correct that separation.
• They got the temple wrong (as I've described above).
• They got the monarchy wrong. God explicitly stated their wish for a monarch like all the other nations was a rejection of God as their king.
• They got the throne of David wrong, which is completely understandable once it is realized Judaism misunderstood the monarchy. The promised throne was not a gold-clad chair but the resurrection from the grave.
• They got the Messiah wrong. The Messiah stood right in front of them commanding illness, demons, and the very elements of creation, fulfilling prophecy after prophecy and they denied him because the real thing did not reconcile with their religious interpretation.

In other words, what Jesus and the New Testament writers were doing was correcting the teachings that were contrary to God's commands. they were restoring the original meaning, not replacing what God commanded.

Have you ever considered that possibility?

 

[Carbon]

For example, in Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true,

Well, of course. It's God's word.

not the other way around.

Not the other way around? Explain what you mean?

 

[Carbon]

The NT explaining the OT means that it is commentary on it. The NT has the same authority as the OT insofar as it is not interpreted as saying things that the Bereans would have rejected, as many Christians commonly do. For example, in Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speak obeying His law, so it is either incorrect to interpret the authors of the NT as doing that or they were false prophets, but either way followers of Christ should be followers of his example of obedience to God’s law. If Paul had been saying things that the Bereans would have rejected because of failing the Deuteronomy 13 test, then priority should be given to the OT, but because Paul passed that test, then we can be confident that those interpretations of Paul are incorrect.

No one is saying the OT has no authority. We are to interpret the OT by the NT. Is that any clearer now?

 

[Soyeong]

What if.....

The original understanding of God's commands was incorrect? What if portions of scripture are a record of mistakes made by religious leaders?

For example, the Hebrews believed they were the promised seed of Abraham. They were a biological "seed," but not the "promised" seed. Their understanding was reasonable given the fact they lacked further revelation explaining what God originally meant but once the meaning of that promise is explained any and all beliefs contrary to the explanation must be changed and/or, wherever appropriate, discarded. Abraham had many seeds, but only one of them was the promised seed.

There is a firm foundation for this in the gospels. Every time Jesus says, "You have heard it said a, b, and c ," but I tell you x, y, and z are the correct understanding," that is an example of Jesus correcting some manmade interpretation. Jesus was not teaching "against obeying what God commanded," as you put it. In point of fact, nearly everything Jesus (and the New Testament writers) taught can be found in the Old Testament. It was not that Jesus (or Paul, or Peter, etc.) taught something new or different, but that what he taught was the true, original meaning of God's commands, not the mistaken interpretations of the Jewish leaders.

For example, In Judaism, the temple was called the house of God and it was believed God dwelt there, at least on the occasion of the sacrifices, similar to when He would come to Moses in the tabernacle (sometimes for long periods of time). In the New Testament we find an update: God does not dwell in houses made of stone. Instead, we find a newer revelation explaining those who believe in His resurrected Son are God's temple and the temple of stone was and always should have been understood as a foreshadowing of Christ. There were indications in the Old Testament indicating the truth of newer revelation, but they were not as explicit as Stephen's declaration. For example, God made it clear that stones used to build an altar should never be shaped, and never had tools applied to them to shape them. The minute the Old Testament states the stones used in the temple were hewn without the use of tools the Jewish reader should have instantly understood the latter command was obeyed, but the former was not. It does not matter that God allowed the disobedience and used the stone temple for His purposes despite the disobedience. The fact remains every hewn stone in the temple's altar was an act of disobedience right in the heart of the temple. The problem is not in the scriptural record. The problem is in what Jewish leaders did with the commands. Have you ever considered theirs was the man-made teaching that went against obeying what God had commanded? Have you ever considered theirs was the man-made teaching that went against obeying what God had commanded, and the New Testament writers were instructed by God to set the record straight and correct centuries of Jewish error? The Jews, after all, got more than just the temple wrong.

• They misunderstood the covenant, incorrectly thinking on the good promises were salient and they could rely solely on the promises of restoration every time they got punished for worshipped idols.
• They misunderstood their own purpose as God's people. They were supposed to be a light to all the other nations rather than isolate around bloodline,
• The misunderstood the priesthood and the civil rule, which were supposed to be unity and not disparate. They separated the religious rule from the civil rule and resisted all attempts by God to correct that separation.
• They got the temple wrong (as I've described above).
• They got the monarchy wrong. God explicitly stated their wish for a monarch like all the other nations was a rejection of God as their king.
• They got the throne of David wrong, which is completely understandable once it is realized Judaism misunderstood the monarchy. The promised throne was not a gold-clad chair but the resurrection from the grave.
• They got the Messiah wrong. The Messiah stood right in front of them commanding illness, demons, and the very elements of creation, fulfilling prophecy after prophecy and they denied him because the real thing did not reconcile with their religious interpretation.

In other words, what Jesus and the New Testament writers were doing was correcting the teachings that were contrary to God's commands. they were restoring the original meaning, not replacing what God commanded.

Have you ever considered that possibility?

Yes, I have considered that possibility. In Matthew 4, Jesus consistently preceded a quote from what was written by saying "it is written...", but in Matthew 5, he consistently preceded a quote from what the people had heard being said by saying "you have heard that it was said...", so his emphasis on the different form of communication is important. Jesus was not speaking against obeying what was written in violation of Deuteronomy 12:32 and Deuteronomy 13, but rather he was fulfilling the law by correcting what the people hard heard incorrectly taught about it and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended. For example, there are some animals that have a questionable status in regard to whether they are clean or unclean, so someone clarifying how to correctly obey that law as originally intended would not be in violation of Deuteronomy 13, but someone teaching against refraining from eating unclean animals would mean that they are a false prophet in violation of of Deuteronomy 13.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, I have considered that possibility. In Matthew 4, Jesus consistently preceded a quote from what was written by saying "it is written...", but in Matthew 5, he consistently preceded a quote from what the people had heard being said by saying "you have heard that it was said...", so his emphasis on the different form of communication is important.

Yes, but the salient point is that he was constantly correcting Judaic understanding. Therefore, Judaism cannot automatically be presumed to provide a foundation for anything written in the New Testament. Discernment must be applied to Judaism so as to exclude all the mistakes contained therein before presuming to measure the apostles' words.

Jesus was not speaking against obeying what was written in violation of Deuteronomy 12:32 and Deuteronomy 13, but rather he was fulfilling the law by correcting what the people hard heard incorrectly taught about it and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended. For example, there are some animals that have a questionable status in regard to whether they are clean or unclean, so someone clarifying how to correctly obey that law as originally intended would not be in violation of Deuteronomy 13, but someone teaching against refraining from eating unclean animals would mean that they are a false prophet in violation of of Deuteronomy 13.

Irrelevant. No one has even remotely suggested Jesus was teaching disobedience. The one single, solitary point broached with you was the premise the apostles cannot be thought to have taught disobedience to God's commands. That is true only if and when God's commands are correctly understood and Judaism did not always do that. Judaism missed many of the most foundational aspect of God's commands. Interpreting the apostles' writings through mistaken understandings of God's commands leads to more mistakes, not fewer.

The minute you acknowledged Jesus corrected bad teaching you undercut your own protest regarding the belief the apostles could not be teaching any disobedience of God's commands.

The accurate, correct position is that the apostles cannot be construed to be teaching disobedience to God's correctly understood commands. They can, in fact, be read to teaching disobedience to Judaization and Judaically mistaken interpretations of God's commands. And that is inescapably relevant to the question asked in this op's title. The Old Testament has a lot to do with Jesus when the Old Testament is correctly understood and not incorrectly Judaized. Much of that understanding is found in the explanations of the Old Testament provided by the New Testament. The errors of Jewish leaders reported in the Old Testament do not come labeled. There are no neon signs with arrows labeled "Error! Error!". The errors a exist, though. They are made known and understood by reading whole scripture, not be having a pre-existing bias that says everything in the Old Testament is an accurate portrayal of God's commands and the apostles could never be teaching against the Judaic understanding and precedent.


Here's another example with which I suspect you'll agree and appreciate. In the Law of Moses there was a law that prohibited oxen from being muzzled while they were used to thresh grain. That Law/law is used at least three times in the New Testament and not a single one of those occasions involves actual oxen or actual grain threshing. The meaning of that prohibit goes far beyond the treatment of oxen during threshing according to multiple New Testament writers. A legalistic treatment of that law would restrict all understanding of that law to strictly literal reading. It could never be made to apply to anything other than oxen and only to oxen while threshing grain. Jesus said the law testified about him. That premise, that understanding, is nowhere stated in the Law itself. Was Jesus teaching anyone not to obey the Law, or was Jesus revealing something that should have always been understood when reading the Law?

 

[Soyeong]

Well, of course. It's God's word.

Not the other way around? Explain what you mean?

Someone testing the OT against the NT to see if what was said in the OT was true.

No one is saying the OT has no authority. We are to interpret the OT by the NT. Is that any clearer now?

I agree that no one said that the OT has no authority. It's fine for the NT to clarify how the OT should be understood. The issue is whether any part of the NT should be interpreted as contradicting any part of the OT and if so which has priority. Jesus and the NT authors quoted from the OT hundreds of times in order to support what they were saying, such as with Jesus saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, so I don't think that it works to interpret them as contradicting what they considered to be an authoritative source or to give greater authority to them than what they considered to be an authoritative source. Nevertheless, it is common for people to interpret the NT as contradicting the OT, such as contradicting God's command to refrain from eating unclean animals, but even if that interpretation were correct, then we should give priority to the OT because of Deuteronomy 13.

 

[Soyeong]

Done.

All that commentary is also incorrect. Deuteronomy 30 is superseded by both Genesis 15 and Christ. Furthermore. Passages like Deuteronomy 28 make it very clear restoration is only one of the options God promises. Destruction is another. The promises of destruction are just as everlasting as the promises of life and the promises of restoration. No one gets to be selective and say, "Only the promises of restoration are everlasting" because ALL the promises are everlasting, including those promising total destruction. Cue up Deuteronomy 28 in an online Bible and Cntrl-F (Search) the word "destroy." You'll see God promised destruction seven times.


Galatians 6:7-8
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a person sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will reap destruction from the flesh, but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit.

Rotting, decaying, death and destruction is what happens when disobedience is indulged. God made a covenant with Abraham and his descendants. Paul explains not all who are descended from Abraham are Abraham's descendants. Those descended only by the flesh are not among the covenant descendants. ants are not descendants of the flesh. It is those who are descendants of promise (like those listed in Hebrews 11 and the new covenant Gentiles) who are the covenant members.


Deuteronomy 30:15
See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, as well as death and disaster.

God promised life for obedience and death for disobedience in Deuteronomy 30. The Jews repeatedly disobeyed God and broke the covenant. God was patient with them multiple times, even though He was not required to be so due to the covenant. He could have wiped them all off the face of the earth the first time, the second time, anytime they broke the covenant. He was patient and long suffering. In the New Testament He reveals that was for the sake of the elect. They were judged to be covenant breakers in Ezekiel and the prophet Jeremiah declared a new covenant would be made with both Israel and Hosea made it clear that would include a people who'd not previously been God's people.

Romans 9:25
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory - even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’ And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

Jesus declared the house of the Pharisees (and by extension the Jews) desolate. Entering Jerusalem, he found the house of God infested with rot and disease and in obedience to the Law, he cleaned it out. It was supposed to have remained empty for seven days before being inspected again to determine whether it would remain standing or be destroyed. He returned the next day to find it re-infested. Through that one single day of repeated trials, he suffered the disobedience of the Jews all the way from their leaders down through the commoner. He finally declared the house desolate and sentenced it to destruction. The house of Israel was desolate and would be destroyed. Destroyed, not restored.


So do not be selective with your reading of Deuteronomy 30. The promises of destruction are just as permanent as the promises of life and restoration. Bloodline Jews did not keep God's covenant. They were eventually declared covenant breakers, and the promised sentence was meted out.

1 Corinthians 1:23-24
...we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

To this very day the gospel remains a stumbling block for the Jews. Only among those who are called - whether they be Jew or Gentile - is the power and wisdom of God known, understood, and become life-giving.

You neglected to interact with what I said about fulfilling the law and God's covenants being cumulative and went off on a tangent. My point in referencing Deuteronomy 30 as to show that the basis for the New Covenant is the Israelites returning from exile, God circumcising their hearts, and returning to obedience to God's law, which Jeremiah 31:33 and Ezekiel 36:26-27 are regard to. The obedience or disobedience or the Israelites doesn't change that the basis of the New Covenant is returning to obedience to God's law, so that is irrelevant. Those who do not want to obey God's law also do not want to come under the New Covenant and shouldn't throw stones and Jews for not obeying it. The New Covenant is based on better promises and one of those promises is that Israel would never cease to be a nation before God (Jeremiah 31:35-37). Cycles of exile and redemption are a central theme in the Bible. Jesus criticizing Pharisees for hypocrisy in not the position that every Pharisee was a hypocrite.

Yep. And his being a Pharisee was later included in his "former way of life in Judaism."

Paul did not say that he used to be a Pharisee, but rather he claimed to still be one. Paul referring to his earlier behavior in Judaism does not suggest that he was no longer practice Judaism. In 24:14, Paul testified that according to The Way, which they call a sect, he continued to worship the God of their fathers, believing everything laid down by the law and written in the prophets, and the religion that "The Way" is a sect of is Judaism.

Whole scripture proves otherwise.

All of Scripture is true, so no part of it should be interpreted as contradicting another part. You are accused me of being selective, but you are deliberately ignoring where Paul directed claimed to be a Jew, so you are not accepting the whole of Scripture. In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, which does not leave any room to interpret Philippians 3 as saying that God's law is rubbish and we just need to know Christ instead, rather Paul had been obeying the law, but not while being focused on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the goal of the law, and that is what he counted as rubbish. Nothing in this passage has anything to do with Paul lying about being a Jew. In Acts 15:5, it says that Pharisees spoke up from among the believers, so there is room for Pharisees in Christianity.

Not quite.

Whether or not Jews are free is irrelevant to the point that Paul was not denying the reality of those categories.

Whole scripture proves otherwise.

Feel free to show where.

Read that again because you've just contradicted yourself. Different parts of the same body, not two different bodies.

Read again because I didn't contradict myself and I didn't say anything about two bodies.

I completely agree. The problem is you've been very selective with scripture and not read any text you've cited in the context of whole scripture. AND, furthermore, when someone (@Arial or I) brings up relevant scripture you do not take it in and measure the selective use of scripture by whole scripture. You do not practice what you preach with very much consistency. What you've done here in this thread could justly be called Judaization. Simply put, Christianity is not Judaism. Christianity is built upon Tanakh, not Judaism. Folks (Christians and non-Christians) get that wrong all the time. Judaization does not measure the OT by the NT. It does not believe the newer revelations explain the older ones. Judaization attempts to reverse that order and both Jesus and Paul in particular repudiated that practice. By the time Jesus showed up to preach the Jews had made a mess of Tanakh.

If you think that I've taken a verse of the context of the whole of Scripture, then by all means make the case for it. Likewise, if you think that I've ignored a relevant Scripture, then quote it. Please interact with what I've said rather than throwing out basis accusations.

Jesus did not come to start his own religion, but rather he came as the Jewish Messiah of Judaism in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and he set a perfect example for us to follow of how to practice Judaism by walking in sinless obedience to God's law. In Acts 21:20, they were rejoicing that tens of thousands of Jews were coming to faith in Jesus who were all zealous for God's law, which is in accordance with Titus 2:14 where Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so Jews coming to faith in Jesus were not ceasing to practice Judaism, but were becoming zealous for it. This means that there was a period of time between the resurrection of Jesus and the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10 that is estimated to be around 7-15 years during which all Christians were Torah observant Jews and Christianity at its origin was the form of Judaism that recognized Jesus as as the Messiah. Neither Jesus nor Paul spoke against the OT, but rather they consistently upheld it.

So it is, in fact, very important you correctly distinguish what the whole Bible teaches and not just the selective portions you've been taught by men to use.

The one single point we are currently discussing is...

You disagreed and attempted to disprove that but Post #28 does not stand up to the measure of whole scripture. You post verse X but verses Y and Z disprove your rendering of X. Deuteronomy 30 contains promises of death, not only life.

You are projecting what you are guilty of onto me.

This is very important because the practice of "onlyism," occurs quite often. Onlyism exists anytime a verse or passage is read and thought to include an "only" where none is stated. The most commonly abused verse is 1 John 3:4.

1 John 3:4
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

That is what the verse states. What it does NOT state is...

Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is [only] lawlessness.


But there exists a huge pile of Christians who wrongly think the Law is the only measure of sin. There is a ginormous pile of Jews, Messianic Jews, Zionist Christians, Dispensationalist Christians, Judaizing Christians who think Deuteronomy 30 guarantees an eternal disposition for bloodline Jews. There is no "only" in 1 John 3:4. There is no "only" in Deuteronomy 30, either. The promises of death and destruction are just as everlasting as the promises of life and restoration.

Sin is what is contrary to God's character traits such as with unrighteousness being sin and sin is the transgression of God's law because it was given to teach us how to be a doer of His character traits.

The new covenant makes the old covenant obsolete. Deuteronomy 30 does not trump Hebrews 8. Post 28 misuses Deuteronomy 30 because it neglects the promise of death. The only salvation in the old covenant exists in the fact the promises made to Abraham were also made to Christ. EVERYTHING God promised Abraham, Abe's promised seed (which is Jesus, not Israel), and Abe's descendants (of promise, not flesh) was Christological. The inheritance of eternal life does not come through the Law. It comes through the one about whom the Law testified.


Whole scripture.

NOT the teachings of men.

Deuteronomy 30 is is perfect accordance with Hebrews 8. Post 28 did not misuse Deuteronomy 30 because the promise of death is not relevant to the point that I was using it to make. In Psalms 119:29-30, he want to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith. While the promise is not earned as the result of our obedience to God's law, the content of what is promised is in regard to obedience to it.

 

[Soyeong]

Yes, but the salient point is that he was constantly correcting Judaic understanding. Therefore, Judaism cannot automatically be presumed to provide a foundation for anything written in the New Testament. Discernment must be applied to Judaism so as to exclude all the mistakes contained therein before presuming to measure the apostles' words.

Jesus criticizing someone of the members of one of the branches of Pharisees, which is one of the sets of Judaism is not a criticism of the whole of Judaism. In regard to the debate between the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai, there was much agreement between Jesus and the House of Hillel. Jesus and his disciples were all Jews who practiced Judaism, so Christianity is not founded on something other than Judaism.

Irrelevant. No one has even remotely suggested Jesus was teaching disobedience. The one single, solitary point broached with you was the premise the apostles cannot be thought to have taught disobedience to God's commands. That is true only if and when God's commands are correctly understood and Judaism did not always do that. Judaism missed many of the most foundational aspect of God's commands. Interpreting the apostles' writings through mistaken understandings of God's commands leads to more mistakes, not fewer.

I used that as example to illustrate the distinction between teaching how to correctly obey God's law as it was originally intended and teaching against obeying God's law. Some Jews interpreting a law in a way that it was not originally intended is not Judaism doing that. I said nothing about interpreting the writings of the Apostles through mistaken understandings of God's commands.

The minute you acknowledged Jesus corrected bad teaching you undercut your own protest regarding the belief the apostles could not be teaching any disobedience of God's commands.

That completely misses my point in making a distinction between teaching how to correctly obey God's law as it was originally intended and teaching against obeying God's law.

The accurate, correct position is that the apostles cannot be construed to be teaching disobedience to God's correctly understood commands. They can, in fact, be read to teaching disobedience to Judaization and Judaically mistaken interpretations of God's commands. And that is inescapably relevant to the question asked in this op's title. The Old Testament has a lot to do with Jesus when the Old Testament is correctly understood and not incorrectly Judaized. Much of that understanding is found in the explanations of the Old Testament provided by the New Testament. The errors of Jewish leaders reported in the Old Testament do not come labeled. There are no neon signs with arrows labeled "Error! Error!". The errors a exist, though. They are made known and understood by reading whole scripture, not be having a pre-existing bias that says everything in the Old Testament is an accurate portrayal of God's commands and the apostles could never be teaching against the Judaic understanding and precedent.

If God commanded something and the Apostle said not to do what God commanded, then that would mean that they were false prophets regardless of whether or not we have a correct understanding of what God commanded, so that is irrelevant.

Here's another example with which I suspect you'll agree and appreciate. In the Law of Moses there was a law that prohibited oxen from being muzzled while they were used to thresh grain. That Law/law is used at least three times in the New Testament and not a single one of those occasions involves actual oxen or actual grain threshing. The meaning of that prohibit goes far beyond the treatment of oxen during threshing according to multiple New Testament writers. A legalistic treatment of that law would restrict all understanding of that law to strictly literal reading. It could never be made to apply to anything other than oxen and only to oxen while threshing grain. Jesus said the law testified about him. That premise, that understanding, is nowhere stated in the Law itself. Was Jesus teaching anyone not to obey the Law, or was Jesus revealing something that should have always been understood when reading the Law?

It would be overwhelming to us for God to teach us how to be a doer of His character traits in every possible situation, so the point is to teach us how to do that by teaching us a limited set of laws that all have them in common. If we correctly understand a character trait, then it will lead us to take actions that embody that trait in accordance with what God's law instructs even in situations where God's law does not specifically address, but correctly understanding a character trait will never lead us away from following God's instructions for how to embody that trait. They understood what the command against muzzling an ox while they are used to thresh grain is intended to teach us, but they never taught that we don't need to obey that law. If they had said that we don't need to refrain from muzzling an ox when they are used to thresh grain, then they would be false prophets.

 

[Josheb]

Someone testing the OT against the NT to see if what was said in the OT was true.


I agree that no one said that the OT has no authority. It's fine for the NT to clarify how the OT should be understood.

Your posts have not reflected that viewpoint.

The issue is whether any part of the NT should be interpreted as contradicting any part of the OT and if so which has priority.

Who has posted that position?

Jesus and the NT authors quoted from the OT hundreds of times in order to support what they were saying, such as with Jesus saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God

Yes, and you have gone on record acknowledging Jesus often corrected the Judaic understanding of the OT. He was not contradicting God, nor God's commands. He was contradicting Jewish interpretation.

, so I don't think that it works to interpret them as contradicting what they considered to be an authoritative source or to give greater authority to them than what they considered to be an authoritative source.

You need to think that through.

If God says "X" in the Old Testament and then a bunch of Jews come along and muck up the meaning of what God said then that muck-up warrants correction. God, correcting the muck-up, then sends a newer revelation by inspiring men to clarify "X" so the muck-up is contradicted. The later writers did not contradict God's command "X;" they corrected the contradiction. They corrected the contradictory muck-up. It was the Judaic Jews who contradicted God's command "X"!!!

Nevertheless, it is common for people to interpret the NT as contradicting the OT, such as contradicting God's command to refrain from eating unclean animals,

Nothing God makes is unclean. It might become unclean later, but nothing He made was made unclean. Genesis 1:31 explicitly states everything God made was very good. Therefore, when God later comes along and tells a specific, separated people not to eat a list of animals because they are "unclean" we know it is not the animals themselves that are unclean because that would mean they are inherently not good and, therefore, Genesis 1:31 was a lie. Since Genesis 1:31 cannot possibly be a lie, the listing of animals as unclean must have some other meaning. In the context of a separated people, the list is unclean for that people, not unclean for the animal. The nature of the listed animals did not change. The relationship of the separated people to the listed animals changed. The relationship between the separated Hebrews and the cleanly made good animals changed...... and Judaism did not correctly understand that, mucked up God's command and taught contradictions.

Then, In Acts 10, Gods clarifies His original command and corrects the Judaic muck-up. The voice of the LORD comes directly to Peter and tells him, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." God does this, according to the Acts 10 text to indicate it is okay for Peter to receive Gentiles for the sake of the gospel. In other words, God Himself ties the command not to eat relationally unclean animals to the preaching of the gospel to Gentiles. God did that. It was not Luke or Peter that did that, What this, in turn, means is that the Judaic Jews misunderstood the command not to eat unclean animals. They incorrectly thought it was about the animals and their own purity when it was, instead, about holiness (separateness) and their identity as a light to the rest of the world. This was just one small part of a larger series of erosions committed by bloodline Israel that - due to their chronic covenant breaking - culminated in their being deemed covenant breakers, God promising to destroy them (which is exactly what He had promised to do in DT. 28), and make a new covenant that would include Israel, Judah, and a people who had not previously been God's people.

God original plan had always been to see the earth subdued and ruled over. The Jews failed to do that. Jesus corrected all the Judaic muck-up and God Himself told the apostles to get back to the original plan = spread the gospel all over the planet. Do not be treating people like they are pigs, catfish, or vultures (scavengers) when you preach the gospel. Jesus himself explicitly stated t was not what went into a man that makes him unclean. Was Jesus contradicting God? If so, then you and I are both still lost and dead in sin and there is no Savior and no salvation from sin.

The dietary restrictions are exactly like the command not to muzzle the ox.

but even if that interpretation were correct, then we should give priority to the OT because of Deuteronomy 13.

Nope.

The command to keep God's commands applies to the commands of the New Testament just as much as it applies to the Old Testament commands. And since it was the Judaic Jews who mucked up God's commands, not the New Testament writers, the New Testament commands that should be kept should be understood as having MORE authority, not less. The New Testament commands never contradict the Old Testament commands. It might appear they do but that is invariably due to a misunderstanding of the commands, never one command contradicting another. The newer revelation explains the older revelation.