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

[Eleanor]

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 apostolic teaching (Ro 14:14) of Christ (Lk 10:16) 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, then for him it is unclean."

Obedience to our consience comes first.
Our conscience should also be correctly informed, as was Paul's.

Yours is a contra-NT paradigm based in a misunderstanding of the relationship of the OT to the NT.

 

[Josheb]

You neglected to interact with what I said about fulfilling the law and God's covenants being cumulative and went off on a tangent.

Please be careful about posting accusations. You won't like it when I said I did address what you said but you just didn't understand how.

Technically, there is only one covenant. It is true that the word "covenant" is emphasized in different ways with Noah, Abraham, Moses and the accompanying Hebrews, etc. BUT God Himself repeatedly ties all the mentions of covenant after Abraham back to the promises made to Abraham AND the New Testament explicitly states that covenant is Christological. I have already explained how and sampled scripture demonstrably proving that. Even the so called "new" covenant that abrogates the "old" covenant is Christological. Christ ties ALL the covenant together. The progressive revelation of scripture and the fact that newer revelation explains older revelation reconciles perfectly with the premise of "the covenants being cumulative," especially when their common Christology is correctly understood. There is no justification for you accusation.

I did not neglect anything. You, however, did. Here's an example of that very fact....

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.

And my points relevant to that point is 1) that text carries with it promises of destruction which you've neglected or ignored because 2) you're demonstrably being selective with scripture and, therefore, 3) ended up with some incorrect conclusions.


So stop accusing me of something that never happened, and stop being a hypocrite by neglecting what I posted, and address those three points relevant to this op!!!

 

[Josheb]

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

Paul does not deny reality. Your interpretation or understanding of Paul may view Paul thusly but that is a problem on your end, not Paul's

Feel free to show where.

Already done. It is all being neglected.

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

I stand corrected. One body of different parts.

See how easy it is to acknowledge mistakes and correct them?

Now let's get back to the germane point. When saying, "we can be different parts of one body" the point Paul is making is that there are no Jews or Gentiles in Christ. We're all branches of the same tree (Jesus) and all parts of the same body (Jesus) and the Jew cannot say to the Gentile "I have no need of you," nor can the Gentile say the same to the Jew. That tree that is Jesus runs through all scripture's mentions of covenant such that it becomes impossible to say there is one set of covenant commands for Jews and another set of covenant commands for Gentiles because the covenants are cumulative and revelation is progressive. The newer revelation explains the older revelations and one of the many accomplishments of the newer revelation is that is corrects errors made within Judaism's teaching of God's commands.

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.

I did! What I posted was neglected, and neglected hypocritically!

Jesus did not come to start his own religion,

I completely agree and nothing I have posted should be construed in any way to say otherwise.

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.

Incorrect.

It's a common mistake. Jesus came as the Messiah who was Jewish, the Messiah who had been prophesied by God within Tanakh to come as the Messiah for the whole world, not just Jews. He came as Lord and Savior of the entire world, lording over all of it and Savior of the elect (however that might be defined). Here again is another case of onlyism. Jesus is not a Jew only Messiah. Here again is an example of how Judaism mucked up God's commands and revelation, and anyone allied to the Judaic understanding has made a serious mistake. Here again is an example of how the newer revelation explains Gods commands in more detail with greater clarity without contradicting God's command and how it does so by correcting mucked-up Judaic contradictions.

It's also another example of how what I've already posted did address your concerns AND how what I posted is being neglected.

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.

The two are not mutually exclusive conditions and Acts 2 tells us events like Acts 21 (not just Acts2) were Joel 2 being fulfilled. In other words, God Himself explicitly stated Old Testament prophecies that were directly tied to the covenant promises made to Noah and Abraham were coming true right then and there. The newer revelation explaining the older ones. Acts 21 also explicitly state both Gentiles and Jews are coming to Christ. You don't get to single out verse 20 as if that defines the entire passage and the entirety of scripture. That would be one more example in a growing list of examples where scripture is being used selectively and not treated in the context of whole scripture. I was asked for an example.

You just provided one!

Furthermore, in the beginning of the history of the Church, the followers of Jesus were called The Way, or followers of the Way of Christ. This is probably a reference to something Jesus specifically stated and not just a label pertaining to sectarianism. Jesus himself is the way to God. The Way was a group within Judaism. It was not a new religion. Adherents to the way of Christ were both Jews and Gentiles and they first met in the outer courtyards of the temple and then the synagogues because Jewish law prevented goy from entering the temple (another Judaic perversion of God's original commands). As The Way increased in size, spreading about to other regions beyond Israel into the Roman Empire three things happened: 1) the old-line Jews who were not followers of the Way began to persecute the followers of The Way, 2) the number of followers of The Way grew beyond the limits available in the synagogue courtyards, and 3) the name began to change from The Way to Christians but the entire time they were still all always the ecclesia. And..... when the Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek the word they used to translate "assembly" was "ecclesia." In other words, the Greek writings are simply using the term the Jews used. They were not inventing a new label. There is a direct correlation between the qahal of the OT and the ecclesia of the NT.

So, once again, there is huge ginormous pile of whole scripture that was completely neglected in Post 38's treatment of Acts 21:20 and, as a direct consequence of that neglect, the verse has been rendered with incompletely and without addressing what I posted.


The only question remaining is whether or not all this information will be considered in the next post, and whether or not all this information will be ignored and neglected.

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.

That is not a point in dispute and all that wasteful content neglecting the salient point. The early Christians were not misguided Jews. They were Jews who had a corrected understanding of Tanakh because God had revealed with greater clarity and correction what was always intended. God corrected Judaism. From that point on there remained covenant-breaking, God forsaking, Messiah murdering and Messiah denying Jews (John later calls all those who deny Jesus is the Son of God who came from the Father in the flesh antichrists)...... and there were covenant-abiding, God honoring, Messiah affirming Jews, and those Jews were not Jews of bloodline but Jews of promise, and they included both Jews and Gentiles because there are no jews or Gentiles in Christ!!! Asct21:20 is not definitive of the entirety of scripture. The entirety of scripture defines Acts 21:20!

You are projecting what you are guilty of onto me.

The facts in evidence prove otherwise.



So how about taking a less confrontational approach and withhold all those impulses to throw out baseless accusations, and I do the same?

Then.... how about starting by addressing the points made, beginning with the premise the New Testament never contradicts God's commands. What it does do is restore and explain their original meaning and correct mistakes made within Judaism.

Start there.

Several examples have been provided so any impulse to say otherwise should not be granted license. Brief explanations for how those errors in Judaism existed and how correction was provided by God have also been provided so, again, any and all impulse to say otherwise should be ignored. It has already been acknowledged Jesus did, in fact, correct the teachings of Jewish leaders and the practices of Judaism in the first century (which were teachings and practices that developed over the course of centuries within Judaism) so just work from that and follow that fact through the whole of scripture to their logically necessary conclusions. Build from consensus wherever the two of us may have it. If Jesus corrected anything in Judaism then that is all the example and all the proof you need for understanding the NT never contradicts God's commands. What it does is restore and explain God's original meaning and intent and correct mistakes made within Judaism.

 

[Josheb]

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.

I completely agree but criticism is not synonymous with correction and to suggest Jewish leaders' teachings are not inherently a consequence of their theology is a mistake. Be careful not to commit the fallacy of moving the goal posts. The fact is Jesus corrected the beliefs, the teachings, and the practices of Sadducees (old-line Judaic Jews), Pharisees, the priests, the scribes and common Jews. All five groups are corrected in the gospels (and Acts).

 

[Josheb]

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.

What you are supposed to be discussing is the premise the NT never contradicts God's commands. What it does is restore and explain God's original meaning and intent and correct mistakes made within Judaism.

What you're supposed to be confronting is not only my posts, but your own neglect of whole scripture and any impulse to consciously or unwittingly Judaize the New Testament.

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.

It does not miss any such point. God's law as originally intended should be obeyed. God's law as originally stated might not be obeyed because the original wording was often abused by Judaism and that abuse should not be accepted or obeyed. At least two examples of that problem have been provided....

.....and ignored.

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.

Never happens. What does happen is Jews and Judaizers interpret what God commanded erroneously because they neglect the newer revelation and then, when the Apostles are read another mistake is committed because the Apostles' words are measure by a mistaken understanding of God's command. At least two examples of this have already been provided..... and ignored.

It would be overwhelming to us for God to teach us how to be a doer of His character traits in every possible situation.....

Digression.


The New Testament never contradicts God's commands. What it does is restore and explain God's original meaning and intent and correct mistakes made within Judaism.

 

[Soyeong]

The apostolic teaching (Ro 14:14) of Christ (Lk 10:16) 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, then for him it is unclean."

The Greek words “akathartos” and “koinos” both refer to a type of defilement, but the Bible never uses them interchangeably, so the reason why you are misunderstanding Romans 14:14 is because it uses the word “koinos” and you are interpreting it as if it had used the word “akathartos” instead. Moreover, you are misunderstanding that verse because Paul was discussing how to handle disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command and you are interpreting it as if Paul has been discussing whether followers of God should follow God. Even if your interpretation of Romans 14:14 were correct, the that would mean that Paul was a false prophet and that you should disregard what he said, so either way you should still refrain from eating unclean animals

Obedience to our consience comes first.
Our conscience should also be correctly informed, as was Paul's.

Someone’s conscience can not be bothered by doing what God has revealed to be sin, so our conscience is not the ultimate determiner of our spiritual condition. In 1 Corinthians 4:4, Paul said that he was not justified even though his conscience was clear. In 1 Corinthians 8:7, someone can become so accustomed to idols that they have a weak and defiled conscience. In 1 Timothy 4:2, someone’s conscience can become seared as with a hot iron. In Titus 1:15, theirs minds and consciences can become corrupted.

If someone’s conscience is not bothered by doing something that God has commanded against or by not doing something that God has commanded, then they have a choice between whether they are going to lean on their own understanding of right and wrong by doing what is right in their own eyes or trusting in God with all of their heart to correctly divine between right and wrong through obeying His law in all of our ways and He will make our way straight (Proverbs 3:1-7), which is the choice between the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life (Proverbs 3:18).

Yours is a contra-NT paradigm based in a misunderstanding of the relationship of the OT to the NT.

My position is not contra-NT, but rather it is contra you turning the NT against obeying what God has commanded. God’s law is truth (Psalms 119:142), so the problem is with your contra-truth paradigm.

 

[Eleanor]

The Greek words “akathartos” and “koinos” both refer to a type of defilement, but the Bible never uses them interchangeably, so the reason why
you are misunderstanding Romans 14:14

Nice try. . .

I'm sure you'll understand if I take the apostolic teaching (Ro 14:14) of Christ (Lk 10:6) at its word.

"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, then for him it is unclean."

 

[Soyeong]

Nice try. . .

I'm sure you'll understand if I take the apostolic teaching (Ro 14:14) of Christ (Lk 10:6) at its word.

"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, then for him it is unclean."

It is equivocation for two different Greek words that are never used interchangeably by the Bible to both be translated into English as “unclean” and then for you to interpret the author’s use of one word as if they had used the other word instead as you think that they used the wrong word and you need to correct them in a way that makes them out to be a false prophet. Moreover, you seem to think that we should still follow Paul regardless of whether or not he did what God said makes someone a false prophet.

 

[Eleanor]

It is equivocation. . .

Depends on your intellectual honesty. . .

 

[Soyeong]

Depends on your intellectual honesty. . .

"Akathartos" and "koinos" can both be translated into English as "unclean", but "akathartos" doesn't mean the same thing as "koinos". If Romans 14:14 had used the word "akthartos", then your understanding of that verse would have been correct, but it uses the word "koinos" instead, so your understanding of that verse is incorrect, and it is intellectually dishonest for your to insist that the verse should be understood as if Paul had used "akathartos" instead.

 

[Eleanor]

"Akathartos" and "koinos" can both be translated into English as "unclean", but "akathartos" doesn't mean the same thing as "koinos". If Romans 14:14 had used the word "akthartos", then your understanding of that verse would have been correct, but it uses the word "koinos" instead, so your understanding of that verse is incorrect, and it is intellectually dishonest for your to insist that the verse should be understood as if Paul had used "akathartos" instead.

Previously addressed. . .Ro 14:14.

 

[Soyeong]

Previously addressed. . .Ro 14:14.

No, you have previously ignored the issue that "koinos" doesn't mean "akthartos" and repeating that verse won't cause it mean that.

 

[Soyeong]

Your posts have not reflected that viewpoint.

That is consistent with my posts.

Who has posted that position?

That is what is being discussed with this thread, such as with God commanding to refrain from eating unclean animals and people interpreting the NT and contradicting God by saying that we do not need to refrain from doing that.

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.

There is much agreement between Jesus and the House of Hillel, so Jesus also affirmed Judaic understanding of the OT.

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"!!!

If Jews had ruled that it was kosher to eat a certain bird there was a newer revelation that it was actually not kosher, then that would be an example of correcting a muck up that is not in violation of Deuteronomy 13, but interpreting the NT as saying that we do not need to obey God's command against eating unclean animals would be a direct contradiction in violation of Deuteronomy 13, not a correction of a muck-up.

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.

An animal being unclean does not mean that it is not good, just that it isn't meant to be eaten as food, so that argument doesn't work. In any case, unclean animals tend to be predators and scavengers, which did not exist before the Fall, so the nature of animals changed with the Fall and caused some to become unclean. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), and there are many other verses that call Gentiles to be holy, so it is not limited to just Jews. In 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are included as part of God's chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a treasure of God's own possession, which are terms used to describe Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6), so Gentiles also have the delight of getting to obey the instructions that God gave for how to fulfill those roles. It would be contradictory for a Gentile to want to live as part of holy nation while not wanting to follow God's instructions for how to do that.

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.

I have no problem with God to clarifying that it is ok to receive Gentiles for the sake of the Gospel, but what I have a problem with is with people misinterpreting Peter's vision as saying that we no longer need to refrain from eating unclean animals.

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.

I have no problem with clarifying that the plan is to spread the Gospel all over the planet, but what I have a problem with is people misinterpreting Jesus as speaking against obeying God's command to refrain from eating unclean animals because that would mean that he was a false prophet.

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

Understanding that the command is about more than the ox does not mean that the command is not also about the ox.

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.

I'm not taking the position that the NT authors clarifying a misunderstanding of the OT in in violation of Deuteronomy or that we should not give priority to their clarification, but rather I am speaking about direct contradictions. If God had commanded to do X and the NT authors had said to not do X, then would you agree that that would mean that the the NT authors were false prophets and that priority should be given to that OT such that we should still do X?

 

[Josheb]

That is what is being discussed with this thread, such as with God commanding to refrain from eating unclean animals and people interpreting the NT and contradicting God by saying that we do not need to refrain from doing that.

No, it is not. This op asks one single, solitary question: What does the Old Testament have to do with Jesus Christ?

And the op's answer to that question is "Everything." The Old Testament has everything to do with Jesus.

There is much agreement between Jesus and the House of Hillel, so Jesus also affirmed Judaic understanding of the OT.

Now you're contradicting yourself. You acknowledged and agreed Jesus corrected Jewish interpretation of Tanakh on multiple occasions. Not only did he do so with all segments of the Judaic Jewish population, but his existence repeatedly confronted and contradicted their teachings and expectations and just about everything they believed about the Messiah turned out to be incorrect.

Btw, that whole "house of Hillel" thing is a pile of dross and part of the problem to be solved. You do not gain any traction in this discussion with me. Hillel teachings have just as many problems as its competitor and it is just as a much a product of the centuries of disobedience and erosion that occurred between Exodus 20 and Matthew 1 as Shammai. Every time an appeal to that set of teachings is made it's a neon sign stating simply, "I'm a scripture-Judaizing apostate who's trying to persuade members of CCAM to join me in my first century BC heresy and first century abusive practices the New Testament openly repudiates." Jesus doesn't get measured by Hillel; Hillel gets measured by Jesus. Put the proverbial horse back at the front of the cart.

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

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

Everything.

The Old Testament content on food has everything to do with Jesus because the entirety of Tanakh, including its content pertaining to food, is Christological in nature. However, the only way anyone would ever know that - whether Jews or Gentile - is to know what the New Testament says about that Old Testament content because the New Testament explains the Old Testament.

The Old Testament informs the New Testament. The New Testament explains the Old.

Rabbi Hillel was working with an incomplete revelation. He lacked all the explanatory commentary God later revealed. That is one of the points made throughout the newer revelation! The reason Judaism got so much wrong was not just because they were a chronically disobedient covenant breaking set of fleshly nationalists. It was also because God hadn't finished His revelation and what He had provided was often veiled or otherwise kept from those adhering to constant scripture-twisting (and covenant breaking). The fact that there happens to be much agreement between Jesus and the House of Hillel is not the problem. The problem is there is much disagreement between Jesus and the House of Hillel and Jesus trumps Hillel on all occasions. Furthermore, what you really mean when you say there is much agreement with Jesus and the House of Hillel is There is much agreement with your interpretation/understanding of Jesus and your interpretation/understanding of Hillel.

Matthew 13:13-15 BSB
This is why I speak to them in parables: ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.’ In them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled: ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has grown callous; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise, they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn, and I would heal them.’

I'm sure you know and understand Jesus was quoting Isaiah and that all four gospel writers and ate least one epistolary author bore witness to his application and explanation of that prophecy.

Romans 11:7-9 ESV
7What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.” 9And David says, “Let their table become a nare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; 10let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs forever.”

1 Corinthians 1:21-24
21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, 24but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

2 Corinthians 3:12-16
12Therefore, having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, 13and we are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not stare at the end of what was fading away. 14But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil [e]remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts; 16but whenever someone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

These, and the other New Testament verses like these, don't just explain the problems that existed in Judaism for centuries, they also apply to Hillel! It's not the parts of agreement that justify Hillel; it's the parts of disagreement that disqualify that house in its entirety. The minute any Jewish believer in Christ reads these texts s/he should immediately apply them to all the Judaic content in his or her Christianity, discarding all that does not reconcile with whole scripture (Gentile converts have a different problem demanding similar kinds of discernment). The problem of Judaization has been a problem within the body of Christ since the body's inception.



Therefore..... you should understand how much patient and grace has been extended to you by every member of the forum since the day you first broached Hillel in this forum. You're not the only one who knows about the House of Hillel (no poster should ever assume another poster is lacking in some particular area of knowledge). It's always best to ask first.

Now..... if you'd like to discuss what the Old Testament's content on food (and not the views of a Jewish Rabbi who lived in the desolate period between the two Testaments) has to do with Jesus then I'm willing, but you're going to have to be willing to at least have to stop Judaizing the New Testament, consider all of scripture as a whole, and at least have some willingness to challenge you're already-existing biases. Do you not ask the same of me?

So start over. Pick an OT text about food and tell me if, how, and what you think that text says about Jesus. Everything else is off the topic specified in the op.

 

[makesends]

The Greek words “akathartos” and “koinos” both refer to a type of defilement, but the Bible never uses them interchangeably, so the reason why you are misunderstanding Romans 14:14 is because it uses the word “koinos” and you are interpreting it as if it had used the word “akathartos” instead. Moreover, you are misunderstanding that verse because Paul was discussing how to handle disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command and you are interpreting it as if Paul has been discussing whether followers of God should follow God. Even if your interpretation of Romans 14:14 were correct, the that would mean that Paul was a false prophet and that you should disregard what he said, so either way you should still refrain from eating unclean animals


Someone’s conscience can not be bothered by doing what God has revealed to be sin, so our conscience is not the ultimate determiner of our spiritual condition. In 1 Corinthians 4:4, Paul said that he was not justified even though his conscience was clear. In 1 Corinthians 8:7, someone can become so accustomed to idols that they have a weak and defiled conscience. In 1 Timothy 4:2, someone’s conscience can become seared as with a hot iron. In Titus 1:15, theirs minds and consciences can become corrupted.

If someone’s conscience is not bothered by doing something that God has commanded against or by not doing something that God has commanded, then they have a choice between whether they are going to lean on their own understanding of right and wrong by doing what is right in their own eyes or trusting in God with all of their heart to correctly divine between right and wrong through obeying His law in all of our ways and He will make our way straight (Proverbs 3:1-7), which is the choice between the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life (Proverbs 3:18).


My position is not contra-NT, but rather it is contra you turning the NT against obeying what God has commanded. God’s law is truth (Psalms 119:142), so the problem is with your contra-truth paradigm.

You have turned what @Eleanor has said into what she didn't say.
1. She is not saying that conscience is the ultimate authority, 'er, "determiner of our spiritual condition". She didn't even BEGIN to say that! Consider, for example, the fact that what you mistakenly took her to be saying [as it appears to you, is] coming from a higher authority—a fact she here and ever since I've known her always speaks of in terms of the authority of God's very words—the apostles under God's direct plenary verbal inspiration!
2. She is not saying that we need not obey God's commandments. Where do you get that????

You are beating up a strawman.

 

[Josheb]

The apostolic teaching (Ro 14:14) of Christ (Lk 10:16) 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, then for him it is unclean."

Obedience to our consience comes first.
Our conscience should also be correctly informed, as was Paul's.

Can we amend or include that to say, "obedience to our conscience can never contradict what the whole of scripture teaches"?

Yours is a contra-NT paradigm based in a misunderstanding of the relationship of the OT to the NT.

....and that's becoming increasingly apparent with each post. The allegiance is to the House of Hillel, not whole scripture.

 

[Soyeong]

You have turned what @Eleanor has said into what she didn't say.
1. She is not saying that conscience is the ultimate authority, 'er, "determiner of our spiritual condition". She didn't even BEGIN to say that! Consider, for example, the fact that what you mistakenly took her to be saying [as it appears to you, is] coming from a higher authority—a fact she here and ever since I've known her always speaks of in terms of the authority of God's very words—the apostles under God's direct plenary verbal inspiration!
2. She is not saying that we need not obey God's commandments. Where do you get that????

You are beating up a strawman.

She said that obedience to our conscience comes first, so I made the point that our conscience can be flawed, so it not what we should obey first. If our conscience isn't bothered by doing something that God has commanded against or by not doing something that God has commanded, then we should obey God first rather than our conscience. God has commanded against eating unclean animals and she is taking the position that we need not obey what He has commanded because of how she has interpreted Romans 14:14, so she is giving greater authority to Paul than to God. 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 against obeying His law, so it is either incorrect to interpret Paul as doing that (my position) or he was a false prophet, but either way followers of Christ should still be followers of his example of obedience to God's law. Do you think that we should still consider Paul be inspired by God even if he did what God said makes him a false prophet who is not speaking for Him? She appears to.

 

[Josheb]

.....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 against obeying His law, so it is either incorrect to interpret Paul as doing that (my position) or he was a false prophet, but either way followers of Christ should still be followers of his example of obedience to God's law.......

That is incorrect.

The reason it is incorrect is because a large swath of revelation is being measured by one single passage of five verses and you've taken that text out of its context. It's particularly ironic because that is not how Hillel taught exegesis. One verse never defines the entirety of all other scripture. Hillel himself taught context is always necessary and he taught a reliance of common wording and/or principle. You've also applied that Dt.13 teaching in an over-generalized manner and ignored what later revelation in both the Old and the New say about and add to the Dt. 13 text.

The word "law" is nowhere found in Dt. 13. What the passage teaches is prophets never make false predictions; self-styled prophets can be recognized by that practiced and need not be followed or feared. It has nothing to do with food. Huge problems would ensue if the passage were applied to other scriptures within the OT the way you've practiced. David would be a false profit, and since all the Jewish kings were law breakers (including Solomon) a large swath of Jewish history would be negated in one way or another. Moses, Gideon, Samuel, Jeremiah, Jonah, and Habakkuk would be false prophets, too.

On top of that, another set of problems for the discussion occur when Hillel is asserted as efficacious but then misused, abused, or otherwise practiced incorrectly. It's ironic because that is the same kind of accusation being leveled at Paul! Double standards are never veracious, or persuasive.