The SDA Church!

You were unnable to show "Sanctify BY eating rats" to be IN the text - not even once.

In the mean time here is what the "text" actually says AS IT STANDS today.

Please note the "inconvenient details"

in Christ,

Bob

 

Welcome back.

Outstanding! My Bible has 66 books - glad to see that yours does too. That is not true for everyone here.

I believe one of them was Mark 7 and I gave a detailed review of the inconvenient "details" in that text showing that the issue of "eating wheat" with ceremonially unclean hands is the context and those who care about exegesis have to pay attention to context over tradition.

you have not taken up the points from Mark 7 that were shown to refute your interpretation.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3814/6.html#000076

Surely the "text" has some signifance in your argument.

If you took the time to actually review the argument that was made from Mark 7 -

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3814/6.html#000076

we see that argument exposes the flaw in your position - you would have been able right here to quote the part where I show that the Jews applied this "sin on the food" context to "all foods" and Christ was showing that this removal of "man made tradition" was applicable to "all food".

I am happy to show how Peter interpreted Acts 10 as he told the illustration 3 times.

But first you have to deal with your own Mark 7 reference and the details IN IT as if you actually cared about how they either do or do not support your argument.

Since you have not addressed even the first response to Mark 7
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3814/6.html#000076
- how do we keep the discussion going?

in Christ,

Bob

 

Now to see how the “traditions of man” were applied to all foods – to all acts of eating such that any eating (even of bread) was “unclean” if the hands were “ceremonially” impure.

Notice first that Mark has made the point about “traditions of man” of Elders more than 3 times. He points us to the problem of eating with “impure hands”. He shows us that the tradition was NOT about eating lamb vs eating cats. Rather the tradition was “about eating in general” with “impure hands”. The term used for clean has to do with “Baptize”. Ceremonial cleansing from “sin”.'

Jesus’ argument is that “SIN” originates from within mankind NOT from outside of man as if the traditions were correct as they argued that sin on food that is then eaten causes the PERSON to become sinful. Christ’s argument is ALL ABOUT how a person engages in sin. He points out that NO food is actually tainted by sin – and ceremonially “unclean”. NOT even the BREAD eaten by the disciples.

How this gets twisted into to “Jesus says rats and cats are now ok as snacks” is an example of the eisegesis that some will embrace while ignore the context of this text and the words of Christ in favor of the tradition of men.

 

Many take Mark 7 and say "Lets forget everything mark says about "tradition" and about "impure hands" and the need for ceremonial washing. Lets also forget Christ's entire argument about "sin" and adultery and the fact that sin comes from within.

Lets ignore the fact that it is BREAD that is UNCLEAN in this case!!

LETS PRETEND that they only verse in the chapter is "all foods clean" and then lets stick that little snippet into "the context of OUR choice" compeletely ignoring the "inconvenient details" of the actual chapter!

Ok - NOW doesn't THAT make this a good chapter for the argument in favor of cat-snacks and rat-snacks! I mean - if we do all that basic eisegetical slicing and dicing wouldn't we then get a pro-cat-snack text out of this?

But you have to wonder "what" drives them to go to such lengths?

in Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, thanks for your further explanation. I read your previous post, and your argument seemed to boil down to this:

Jesus was talking about bread, not about foods previously declared unclean. Let me examine your post, point-by-point, lest that be an oversimplification of your view.

We are agreed that the Word of God does not change with cultural trends. There are certain commands in Scripture that are based in the culture of the day and must be redefined accordingly, such as Paul's (in)famous command to "greet one another with a holy kiss." I get the feeling that wouldn't go over so well at my church, but you're more than welcome to come try it, since they don't know you here.

I'm not sure, though, whether the Jewish dietary laws were confined only to the Jewish nation or not. One evidence that they were so confined I find in Acts 15, where the Jerusalem Counsel writes a letter to the church in Antioch, commanding the Gentiles there to abstain from food offered to idols, strangled foods, and blood. Obviously, these rules are dietary in nature, but if all Christians were to follow the kosher laws of the Old Covenant, would not the Jerusalem Counsel have also said (even in brief), "Eat only animals that chew the cud and have a cloven hoof, and fish with fins and scales"?

Thus, the Jerusalem Counsel didn't see the need to put the Gentiles under the full extent of the Jewish dietary laws, so perhaps those laws were confined to the Old Covenant Jewish nation?

Further evidence of the "don't eat unclean animals" laws being confined to the Jews is found in Genesis 9. The preacher to which Claudia referred me mentioned that clean and unclean animals were already distinguished from one another then, probably for the purposes of sacrifices. In Genesis 9:2-3, God says to Noah, "And hte fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing tht liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." God says to Noah that he can eat any animal (but, in the next verse, again, no blood).

So, in the Bible, looking at the Scriptures as a whole, I see a couple of universal principles concerning food: no strangled things and no blood. I see the majority of the dietary laws being confined to the Jews, though.

If God intended those parts of His Word to apply only to the Old Covenant Jewish people, then Jesus was abolishing nothing, but merely saying that they were fulfilled.

This statement seems to be the crux and foundation of the rest of your argument concerning this chapter, though I could be wrong.

I see your point with Mark 7. You've presented a good, solid, Biblical case for it, and I'll agree to your position concerning that chapter, until I see a good reason to do otherwise (I'm really not that wishy-washy with my beliefs, but if someone presents a view on a passage more Biblical than your own, then not accepting it can only be attributed to pride).

Now what have you proven to me? You've demonstrated, using Scripture, that the Jews were under Mosaic law, not under man-made traditions, and Jesus did not change that, at least not in Mark 7.

Let's count that point as granted and move on to the other Scriptures I cited.

To summarize quickly:

I'm proposing that we count as granted that Mark 7 does not free the Jews from the Jewish law.

I submit that Genesis 9, Acts 15, Romans 14, and others support my view that we are freed from kosher laws under the New Covenant because they were confined to Old Covenant Jews.

I look forward to reading your replies.

Michael

 

Now you want to pay attention to context?

Exegesis and context only matters to you if it supports your view of the scriptures. That is all, you consistantly talk about exegesis and context but show that it is just and expression that makes you sound scholarly, nothing more.

Let me ask Claudia and you a question. Is there any other Christian denomination other than the SDA that believes pork eating is forbidden in scripture for the NT saint?

God Bless!

 

You are on a good approach here. Take the argument and respond to each point made.

In this case though you need to adjust your identification of the target to hit.

My point is this --

#1. Christ is NOT limiting himself to bread because the tradition of man that he is arguing against is not limited to bread only. They both apply their contrast views to ALL foods.

If Christ limited HIS remarks to just bread - then the Jews could CONTINUE to argue for "sin on food if it is meat". IF He limited his remarks to just meats then the Jews could CONTINUE to argue their current case about "BREAD" and sin being "on it" via impure hands.

#2. The Jews are applying their "tradition" in this case to BREAD but they make no statment to the point that it only applies to BREAD.

#3. In BOTH the argument of the Jews AND the argument of Christ this issue is "sin" coming from outside (some THING has sin on it) and getting INTO you. Christ argues that there is NO SUCH THING as outside objects having "sin on them" rather he argues that sin is transgression of God's Word - giving several pre-cross examples of God's Word being violated.

#4. In His own summation HE argues that do make VOID the Word of God by man made tradition - is to "worship God in vain". The contrast is always between the WORD of God and the tradition of man in Mark 7.

Those who want to turn God's Word against God's Word are practicing eisegesis.

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. you are right that is a reference to purely dietary - "food" laws from Leviticus still being applicable to Gentiles.

#2. Your statement about God's Word in Lev 11 possibly being nullified does not work becuase the Acts 15 ALSO does not tell the Gentiles not to lie or kill or covet or to honor their parents etc. IF we had the "liberty" to assume that Acts 15 NEGATES whatever it does not "repeat" then we could wipe out most of scripture at that time - and open the flood gates to a wide variety of sin.

Hopefully that is not where you are going with this.

 

That is pretty interesing. So you admit that in Gen 6-7 we DO have clean and unclean animals known to makind (not Jews).

You must also admit that no definition is given for them there - the ONLY place Moses' READER could go to SEE what the definition for that term "means" is Lev 11. There they would know WHICH animals "are food" and which are not.

You then say that Moses' reader would "ignore what they read" in Lev 11 as they applied it to Gen 6-7 and pretend that the definition must not apply to "food" even though that is "the only one they have".

Then when we go to places like Isaiah 66 and "see" that God is burning in fire and brimstone those who eat cats, rats and dogs... we "ignore that too" and pretend that Noah is told to eat cats, bats, rats and dogs in Gen 9!

That is pretty interesting - but I am not sure the Moses' readers would have made such wild leaps in logic.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The idea? No. I believe He was getting rid of the law of not eating swine's flesh. There are things that are permissible to me, but not beneficial to me.

Bob, I'd like to point out that I'm not attempting to "nullify" the Word of God, but merely to see it as a whole, and when I look at it as a whole, I see passages (many of which I cited in previous posts) that seem to tell me that we am no longer bound by dietary laws. Also, Jesus called all meets purged in the Mark passage. I believe He broadened the context of the discussion to include all meats (or foods), mainly because He said "all meats." So did he mean it when He declared all meats purged or not?

Concerning the Acts 10 passage, God told Peter to kill and eat animals that, under the Old Covenant, were unclean. He was using that exercise to teach Peter a lesson, yet there is a crucial question which must be addressed: was God commanding Peter to sin in order to teach him a lesson? I don't believe so. In fact, I believe just the opposite: that God's command to "slay and eat" was NOT sin.

I don't believe either of you have yet addressed the other passages I have cited which I believe support the view I hold.

I look forward to continuing this discussion with you.

Michael </font>[/QUOTE]Michael,

I am putting both of these passages below so I can compare them.

The reason I wanted to use the Matthew 15 passage is it because there was more to it... it adds this at the end of it in verse 20:

"These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man"

and thats what I saw as being the main point Jesus was trying to make....

But anyway I will come back today hopefully and talk to you about the passage in Mark.. and also the passage about God telling Peter to "slay and eat" he unclean meats too.


Mark 7:
15: There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
16: If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
17: And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
18: And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19: Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
20: And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
21: For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22: Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.


Matthew 15

15: Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
16: And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17: Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18: But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19: For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

 

You were unnable to show "Sanctify BY eating rats" to be IN the text - not even once.

In the mean time here is what the "text" actually says AS IT STANDS today.

Please note the "inconvenient details"

in Christ,

Bob [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Bob,

You did not put a reference to the bible version you are using here. I looked up Isaiah 66:17 in the KJV and got this:

This wording would lead one to connect the sanctifying and purifying to the eating of swine's flesh. This would also make sense given the context of sanctifying and purifying oneself as no-one can purify themselves in God's sight. Thus it is an act that is entirely false religion from start to finish, but hardly a proof text for the continued validity of Levitical law.

 

Michael,

Okay it says whatever enters from without cannot defile the man.


If you were to spend an hour a day looking at pornography would that defile you?

Of course we know that yes, it would defile you.


So by this we know that this doesnt mean what it seems to mean at first glance, right?

What its talking about is that something that just comes in from the outside and passes through, not taking any effect on you, cant hurt you. Its whats in your heart that hurts you.

The food itself doesnt defile you... the pornography itself doesnt defile you.

YOU defile yourself when you take the thing to heart and it becomes a part of you.

Such as, if you yourself dont care what you do to your own body; if you yourself dont care if eating an improper diet is going to take off about 10 years from your life... what is it that defiles you in this?

Is it the food itself? or is it your own selfish heart that doesnt really love God or love your neighbor?

If you love God you would want to live 10 more years to spread the gospel message. If you love your neighbor you'd want to do the same thing. If you love only yourself you'd only be concerned about your own appetite.


Phil:3:19: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things

You know, the first thing Jesus did when beginning His ministry was He spent 40 days and nights in the wilderness overcoming appetite. He had no food at all. What was the purpose of that?


Claudia

 

Yum! Some good old fashioned rat stew and camel burgers sounds good right about now.

 

Bob, thanks for continuing to discuss this subject with me. You made a post on Mark 7, and it was good, but I counted that point as granted. So, moving on.

The problem with that approach is that the Gentiles would have known and obeyed a lot of things by conscience. Remember, Paul in Romans 3 tells us that the Gentiles had a moral conscience by which they were condemned, just as the Jews were condemned by Mosaic Law. So they already knew that lying, murder, etc. were wrong.

Dietary laws would not have been a part of that internal "Gentile Law." So the Jerusalem Counsel felt the need to write a short note briefly informing them of principles they may not have known until such time as they could teach them in more depth.

In order to make this point work, it seems like you would have to assume that the Christians in Antioch had no knowledge of morals.

Furthermore, Acts 15 does not negate whatever it does not repeat, yet if it's going to mention dietary laws, why not mention the eating of unclean animals?

Well, obviously Noah knew which animals were clean and unclean. How he knew is a question for speculation; perhaps God divinely revealed it to him. Anyway, I agree with this statement.

You seem to be missing what I'm saying. I have no problem saying that the Jews were bound to the Leviticus 11 dietary laws. But Noah and his people weren't so bound, as evidenced by Genesis 9, and the Christians at Antioch weren't so bound, as evidenced by Acts 15, especially since clean/unclean food laws didn't even exist until Moses.

So, yes, Moses' readers would have understood Leviticus 11. But what about prior to Moses, when those laws didn't exist?

Actually, I'm pretending nothing about Genesis 9. Noah was explicitly told that he could eat all animals. Your interpretation of it seems to interpolate an understanding of a law that wouldn't exist for centuries to come.

The Isaiah passage is one I'm still pondering, but I think a fair understanding of it has been presented already by Dave.

Claudia, I concede the point with the Mark 7 passage, yet that does not negate my overall point, that the Scriptures as a whole would set down the universal principle of not eating blood, but the laws about eating only clean animals were only in force for the Old Covenant Jewish nation.

Again, to summarize:

I believe Leviticus 11 only applied as law to the Jews.

I believe Genesis 9, written before there were Jews, authorizes the eating of all animals.

I believe Acts 15 authorizes the eating of all animals.

Furthermore, I Timothy 4:3-5 authorizes the eating of all foods, does it not?

So, what I see in the whole counsel of Scripture is a universal principle of not eating blood and a law of not eating unclean animals that bound only Jews under the Mosaic Covenant.

Michael

 

Michael,

I think that if someone wanted to prove unclean meats were ok to eat they could use this verse:

1Cor:10:23: All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

But I lean towards the idea that all things are really profitable for me to do.

If a Christian really loves God they wont go trying to find the lowest point to which they can go and still make it to heaven... instead they will be seeking to reach the highest standard because they want to reflect the character of Jesus to all. Plus of course in this case of diet, they would want to live long and be healthy.

So to me I dont even think about whether or not it is "ok" to eat unclean or even clean meats. I look for what would make me the healthiest so that I can glorify God and etc...


Alot of people in our church eat meat, the clean meats, I mean, but then again lots of them are vegetarians.

But its just that if the unclean meats were detrimental to your health in old testament times they will be just as much so now.

And if you think about it, the original diet given to man was vegetarian (see Genesis 1:29,30) and then in heaven there wont be any meat eating since there wont be any death. Meat eating started with sin... and death. Even the animals were vegetarians before sin started. So I think we should be getting ready for heaven now and
to me thats where our minds should be at. Instead of trying to see how much we can get away with. Not that I am saying thats what you are doing at all, Im just saying that this is my attitude about the whole thing and so I realy havent studied much into the idea of whether or not it is actually lawful to eat this and that food.

As a general thing, the Lord did not provide His people with flesh meat in the desert. He removed from them the flesh of dead animals. He gave them angels' food, manna from heaven. God continued to feed the Hebrew host with the bread rained from heaven; but they were not satisfied. Their appetites craved meat, which God had withheld, in a great measure, from them. After they kept complaining and asking for meat God finally gave it to them but that didnt turn out very well


Claudia

[ May 01, 2006, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: Claudia_T ]

 

Claudia,

First of all,

I'm guessing and hope you meant "all things are NOT really profitable." Otherwise we have an even more fundamental discussion to work on.

I agree with your whole post, for the most part. I'm not saying we ought to disregard all healthy eating habits, any more than I'm saying we ought to disregard other hygienic practices merely because we're no longer bound to them. I'm just saying I do not believe we're still bound to them.

About eating in Heaven--if we're going to properly prepare for that, should we not reduce our diets to fruits from trees? After all, won't we be eating from the Tree of Life? And if we are, that eliminates vegetables, which gets a huge Amen from me.

You said you haven't studied this much. To be honest, I haven't either, really. This is the first time I've ever actually engaged in a discussion on whether I could eat porkchops without marring my conscience or not. I'm glad you've taken the time to examine the Scriptures on this issue with me.

Michael

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That ceremonial cleansing was "a man made tradition" according to Christ in Mark 7. That man-made tradition stated that food was "unclean" by virtue of "sin" sticking to the hands - touching food contaminating it with "sin" and then when eaten - resulting in "sin in you".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before moving on -- just a few points.

#1. I applaud your response. I have seen very few people do that. Your response optimizes your own argument because it drops the failing case and moves on to something that has more promise. It also shows that you are willing to consider full details in a specific example and are willing to release a prior position "no matter what the inconvenient facts".

#2. A much more "common" response is simply to throw more good effort on top of a failed idea or to "avoid all questions" that would tend to point to the failing case and bring the flaws up again. All that does is hand out a huge invitation to keep exposing the failed argument in the latter case.

So your response is wise both from the standpoint of "truth" AND from the standpoint of keeping your own argument in the best position possible.

bravo!

We now move on!

In Christ,

Bob

 

...
Here is what the "text" actually says AS IT STANDS today.

Please note the "inconvenient details"

[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]

NASB.

But I would not object to NKJV

</font>[/QUOTE]I don't see the difference between this and the NASB so far.

I agree that the statement about the mice and destible things is connected to the eating of swines flesh as both are mentioned in the same text.

But see no reason to conclude that those who ate mice ALSO ate swine's flesh.

In the same way the ones who participate in the pagan rituals "in the gardens" are in sin EVEN if they did not eat rats.

I see nothing here about only being a pagan ritual because it is "sanctification BY eating rats".

Pagan idol worship would be wrong even without the rats.

God is pointing to the future judgement by fire and brimstone upon all mankind and we have NO reason to believe that pagan worship ALWAYS required the worshippers to "eat rats".

Futhermore - the context for the reader in Isaiah 66 WOULD be Lev 11 when it comes to "eating destible things".

This is beyond dispute.

That means that it was "sin to eat rats and cats" EVEN if you were not also worshipping idols! (Assuming the people of God in Isaiah's day could still trust God's word in Lev 11)

Exegesis makes this case rock solid.

In Christ,

Bob

 

See

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3814/9.html#000128