The SDA Church!

The context here is not "what do pagan Gentiles with no access to the Word of God or the Gospels do right some times."

The "context" is - Gentile CHRISTIANS that DO have access to the gospels and DO have access to God's word!

Sola scriptura - remember?

In Acts 13 we SEE that EVEN Gentiles who are looking at the God of the Bible meet in the synagogues with the Jews and learn from God's Word about the one true God.

The REASON the argument for circumcision is getting so much traction in the church of the NT is that their Bible INCLUDED the 39 books of the OT that OUR Bible has today! (remember WE TOO are gentiles!)

So in Acts 15 the point remains - they would NOT dump God's Word "in favor of what pagan gentiles might know by instict when it comes to sin vs obedience".

Paul says in Romans 7 that EVEN in the NT age the Law of God is considered "Holy Just and Good" and in Rom 3:31 "We do not make VOID the Law of God by our faith - rather we ESTABLISH the Law of God".

But even worse - for your argument is the fact that the pagan gentiles WOULD have been mixing in blood with sacrifices and eating things strangled.

The advice given in Acts 15 from the OT dietary laws WOULD conflict with their normal practices outside of Christianity.

Furthermore - we know that the Acts 15 councile WOULD have considered the WORD of God (the 39 books of the OT) to be "valid".

WE SEE the Gentiles in Acts 13 IN the Synagogues (on Sabbath after Sabbath) and HEARING the Word of God with the Jews. We have no reason to believe that Christian Gentiles would have been kept in the dark about the Creator of mankind, the fall of man, the flood (2Peter 3 explicitly denies that) and the teachings of Jesus that reference the OT text extensively.

Your argument "requires" a kind of "secret club" formed among Jewish Christians in Acts 15 that kept the gentile Christians away from the Word of God - and yet some faction still wanted them to be circumcised according to that Word that they were keeping away from Gentiles. (At least that is where your "argument from instinct" seems to be going)

It is a valid argument if we are talking about the unsaved pagan gentile. But "again" the "context" of Acts 15 is NOT in reference to all the unsaved gentiles -- it is specifically about Gentile CHRISTIANS.

The point remains.

The "gentile law" did not have the "correct code of morals" - these were pagans. They did not have the correct view on the creator of man, the fall of man, the flood etc. The claim that "the entire Bible for Gentiles can be reduced to 3 verses in Acts 15" takes a blind approach to Acts 13 and all the gentiles being informed "from Sabbath to Sabbath" about the Word of God.

Quite the opposite. My argument is that the gentiles were hearing the Word of God as we see in Acts 13 and as James states in Acts 15 "Moses is read every Sabbath in the synagogues".

It is for that very REASON that the argument for circumcision had such play with gentiles because the "Bible" had the command right there for them to see!

My argument is that the very reason the Acts 15 letter could be so short is that it RELIED on the fact that God's Word would continue to be fully available to all Christians.

With that admission falls your entire argument from Acts 15.

#1. This is a point from "curiosity" but does not form a kind of "proof" simply by asking the question.

#2. The answer is that by INCLUDING the context of Acts 13 (two chapters earlier) the writer is showing that they merely had to "emphasize" the points of Bible-based Christian behavior that would be somewhat challenging to gentiles. Pagans would already be eating both clean and unclean meats so limiting them to the clean meats would not be "eating something new". The bigger issue would be how to prepare the SAME food they were already eating - if clean foods, and to remind them NOT to take those clean meats from idols.

But whatever "reason" you choose - once you admit that "what is not repeated must be deleted" is a bogus basis for doctrine in Acts 15 you are then stuck with "the context" which is stated explicitly - "circumcision".

If we could forge a wooden rule about ONLY obeying 4 verses in Acts 15 then EVEN the writings of Paul and the Gospels could be rejected by Gentiles.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The point is not as difficult as you would have it.

#1. Moses is "writing" and his readers are his contemporaries.

#2. Exegesis demands that we consider the obvious intended meaning for the first order - primary audience.

Moses' readers would have access to the writings of Moses (Duh). He is referencing a term for HIS readers in Gen 6-8 that is defined in HIS book - Leviticus in Chapter 11. HIS readers would see that.

Your approach requires that we ignore that. It requires that we pretend that Moses would have one meaning for the term in Genesis and ANOTHER one in Lev 11 EVEN though it is the SAME author, the SAME term and he is writing to the SAME audience.

In other words - your method "requires" that abandon exegesis to "suppose" that some "undefined" and "unclear" context is all we have for the term and all Moses' readers would have had.

Such is obviously not the case as a point of fact.

As for HOW Noah came to know What MOSES knew - I would agree with you that God may well have made it known to mankind pre-flood. the first Six chapters of Genesis are not an exhaustive account of all that was said for 15 centuries.

Which means that the "reader" -- Moses' "reader" to whom and for whom HE is writing the book of Genesis would know the context of Lev 11 for the term "Clean and unclean animal".

Once you accept this obvious fact - your entire case for the terms "Clean" and "unclean" in Gen 7-8 not having the same context as Lev 11 falls apart.

BTW - Moses is not writing to "Jews" He is writing to "Hebrews" since Israel was comprised at that time of all 12 tribes.

Here is where it would help to quote my previous post and respond to each point as I am doing with your posts. You simply restate that Gen 9 should be making your case without dealing with the part of my post that shows how such a view does not work.

Here it is numbered.

#1. Moses reader would know that the clean and unclean context of Gen 7-8 was in reference to Lev 11. They see that Moses is writing and they know what he has said in Lev 11 about those terms.

#2. If we were to take the clean/unclean teaching of Lev 11 - and see it fully in place in Gen 6-8 THEN suppose that God was authorizing the cat and rat "dinners" in Gen 9 ONLY to condemn that very same practice in Isaiah 66 as worthy of fire and brimstone hell in that future Rev 20 judgment - we have God "authoring" sin for Noah by telling him to eat cats! (Or maybe it is just rats)

Your argument fails as soon as you admit that the readers know about Lev 11 and as they read the terms "clean and unclean" in Gen 6-8 they "know what they mean" because they have the books of Moses. That means the primary intended audiance will see the Lev 11 Term "Clean and Unclean" used in Gen 6-7 and will take that as the preflood meaning! You needed the preflood case to be totally disconnected from the books of Moses - but that is impossible since the pre-flood story COMES FROM MOSES!

I agree that the Gen 9 text on "eating all" would open the doors to rats and cats if you could ignore the Gen 6-8 context on clean foods that appear to STILL be used in Gen 8.

Furthermore the future condemnation of those who eat rats and cats as seen in Isaiah 66 is pretty compelling given that NEITHER Isaiah's readers NOR Moses's readers could afford to Ignore Lev 11 when it came to the terms being used.

You might want to keep up with the responses on that topic then - because the case for rats in Isaiah 66 does not work well at all.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Please note the "inconvenient details"

NASB.

But I would not object to NKJV

</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks

</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. </font>[/QUOTE]I had connected the sanctifying with it. I agree that swines flesh and mice could be an either/or for any one individual.

Also agree with this. Pagan ritual is sin. If not priests, then they cannot sanctify themselves (good point, Claudia).

I agree it is beyond dispute. Now, lets apply some exegesis to this. Who was the audience? The Jewish people under the Mosaic Law. This in no way proves that Christians are under the same constraint as Christ completes the law.

I have another comment on Acts 15. Lets look at the context there. A conflict arose becaause some people from Judaea went to Antioch and were teaching the gentile christians that they could not be saved unless they were circumcised. Paul and Barnabas took this to the Jerusalem council and this is the context in which their reply should be viewed. This is found in Acts 15:1-3.

What do we know about circumcision? Is it a part of what men knew from the dawn of time? No, it was a practice instituted with Abraham and re-instituted with Moses as a sign of the old covenant. This makes it part of the specific covenant that Israel was under as was the dietary law.

Further context is in verse 5 where we are told that some Pharisees which were believers said they needed to keep the law of Moses. Verse 6 tells us that this was the matter before the council.

The instruction to the Gentiles was the only part of the Mosaic law that they put on the gentile christians. This specifically excludes the rest of the Mosaic law by its context. Now obviously, Moral law which was placed in the heart of all men was never rescinded, but that also was never limited to only being revealed in the Mosaic law.

For health, I would agree that the dietary laws are a good idea, but I do not see that the new testament church is anywhere required to keep those laws.

 

The dietaty laws were not for heath anyway, as "clean" and "unclean" were spiritual concepts.A toadstool is a poisonous mushroom, but it was not made ceremonially "unclean". It was all connected to the Temple ritual, and the same animals were forbidden for sacrifice. That has nothing to do with "health". And that is what goes back to Noah's time when they were not even eating meat yet.

 

Bob, that was a lot to chew on. I don't understand your whole bit about taking Genesis 9 in the context of Leviticus 11, but I'll try here.

Thanks. The best we can do is conform to the Word. I've been mired in false teachings most of my life, and I tell people, "Never let any human change your mind about what you believe; only let the Word change your beliefs."

Ok, so they had the Old Testament available to them. So we're not looking at people who were only under the law of conscience that Paul described. Thanks for pointing that out.

True.

I don't see where that hurts my case at all. After all, if they were eating things strangled and eating blood, that means it would've been important for the Apostles to tell them not to do that. Obviously, there's no reason not to tell someone not to do something he's not doing anyway, right?

Actually, I would say the information you presented strengthens my case significantly, because the Apostles didn't just say, "Hey, follow the Levitical guidelines." Instead, they said, "Hey, follow just these specific rules." Remember the purpose of the whole counsel was to decide whether they should make Gentiles be circumcised. And they decided not to force the Gentiles to follow the whole of the Law.

Yep. That's why they gave it.

As do I. Else, this discussion would have no purpose at all.

Granted.

Eh... I was mistaken about them not knowing the Old Testament, but as I demonstrated above, the fact that they DID know it and were basically told not to worry about any Levitical laws except the ones cited by the Apostles lends credence to my case.

I'm not sure what you're saying. You're right about the Gentiles having the Word. Again, as I said, that would seem to strengthen my case even more.

Hold on a second. Are you saying that you disagree with the Jerusalem Counsel's decision and think the Gentile Christians ought to have been made to be circumcised?

Ok, so they would have been eating unclean animals, too, by your own admission. So the Apostles SHOULD have been emphasizing that, too. But they didn't. Generally, whether by moral conscience or Synagogue teaching, the gentiles already knew right from wrong.

So, again, I don't see where that contradicts my stance.

In other words, the Apostles were saying, "This is what you need to follow from specifically Jewish law."

Yep. But God is speaking, and His audience is Noah.

And the primary audience for God speaking in Genesis 9 was Noah.

Yep.

Actually, my approach requires that we look at this in the context of God speaking to Noah, rather than assuming that a Law existed which would not for several centuries. In other words:

Who is speaking? God.
To whom is God speaking? Noah.

Unless, of course, you're arguing that the words attributed to God in that passage are actually Moses' words, but I think I know you better than that.

Not really, as far as I can see. Moses' readers would have a more extensive understanding of clean/unclean animals than Noah, but my approach requires that we take the exchange in Genesis 6-7 and in Genesis 9 in the context of Noah's day. What God revealed to Noah, the very first time man was told he could eat animals, was that he could eat anything. God later narrowed that to eating only the clean animals.

Well, true, but we're not talking about how the Hebrews would have taken the words of Moses, but how Noah would have taken the words of God.

Maybe it was just a really boring 1,500 years.

Your fact is true, obviously, but the problem is that Noah could not have interpreted God's command in light of Leviticus 11, since he didn't have Leviticus 11. So we have to take this in the context of Noah.

Oh, ok. Thanks.

But you seem to be trying to place a context on Genesis 9 which was not intended, trying to say that Noah would have interpreted the words of God in light of a book that would not be written for centuries. That doesn't hold water with any exegetical or hermeneutical rules of which I'm aware. My view takes the discussion in the context of Noah's day, and, therefore, I think it is a more sound view.

Again, because I view the passage in the context of Noah, my view still works, however the Hebrews would have viewed "clean and unclean." And maybe I'm being nitpicky, but the pre-flood account came from God. Moses was just the guy who reported it.

Well, again, while "clean" and "unclean" were defined in Genesis 6, the command not to eat the "unclean" didn't come about till Leviticus. There is something in common between the readers of Isaiah and the readers of Moses: they were Hebrews. Noah was not.

Dave's comments on Acts 15 are good, I think.

Michael

 

Dave - recall that the initial question in relation to Isaiah 66 is the use of the terms for "future judgment" as seen in Rev 20 and the fact that the eating of mice is condemned along with pagan idols worship.

The arguments that were "tried" at the time to refute that were of the form "paganism was only condemned IF it sought to sanctify BY eating rats".

However the review we just did fully debunks that approach.

Dave said

I agree it is beyond dispute. Now, lets apply some exegesis to this. Who was the audience? The Jewish people under the Mosaic Law. This in no way proves that Christians are under the same constraint as Christ completes the law.


indeed exegesis demands that we admit that Isaiah's readers WOULD accept God's word in Lev 11 and seek to honor it. In that context "destible things" would include the rats listed in Isaiah 66. Eating them would be wrong - even if one was not ALSO worshipping idols!

 

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

It is for that very REASON that the argument for circumcision had such play with gentiles because the "Bible" had the command right there for them to see!

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

No I am saying that the reason the controversy had "significant effect" was the very real fact that Gentiles WERE reading God's Word and IT contained the command for circumcision.

Paul simply points out that God's Word never requires gentiles to be circumcised -- he argues "sola scriptura".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Oh, ok. *wipes brow* I was scared we were gonna have to have a whole 'nother debate going on there!

Michael

 

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

Your argument "requires" a kind of "secret club" formed among Jewish Christians in Acts 15 that kept the gentile Christians away from the Word of God - and yet some faction still wanted them to be circumcised according to that Word that they were keeping away from Gentiles. (At least that is where your "argument from instinct" seems to be going)

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

The did not say "don't worry about most of God's Word - just pay attention to these 5 things and trash the rest of scripture".

In fact - read Lev 18. Tell me how much they could trash.

The other thing is that the NT authors continually quote from the books of Moses - going far beyond the list in Act 15 as "authorotative scripture".

(Lev 19:18 comes to mind from James 2).

Your assumption is incorrect.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, there is a good deal they knew. Most of that was basic morality, and things like that did not need to be repeated in the Acts 15 letter. The whole purpose of the Jerusalem Counsel was to answer the question, "Do we need to make these guys Jews?" The answer, of course, was "No." So, they basically said, "Of the Old Testament laws, the only ones we're binding you to are these four things: don't eat anything offered to idols; don't eat blood; don't eat strangled things; don't commit fornication."

The rest--the moral law set down in the Old Testament--they would have already been following, right? So there's no reason to tell them to do that. But they would've been eating their porkchops, most likely, so the Apostles would've had reason to tell them not to, if it were necessary not to eat unclean animals. That they didn't, to me, implies that the Apostles understood the truth presented in I Timothy 4:4, that "every creature of God is good."

Now, why is every creature of God good and nothing to be refused? Well, let's turn to Romans 14 and see. In Romans 14:14, Pauls says that nothing is unclean of itself, but to him who esteems anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. So Paul clearly, plainly, and unambiguously says that nothing is unclean of itself.

Look back toward the beginning of the chapter and notice 14:2-3. That would be us. I'm the one who eateth. You're the one who eateth not. Romans 14 tells me that we have the liberty to decide that for ourselves without being bound to a law about it.

And, so, "every creature of God...is sanctified by the word of God and prayer" (I Timothy 4:4-5).

Did the Apostles know that? Well, I should hope so. In trying to bind people to Kosher laws, you would seem to have a fight with Paul on your hands, since he very plainly and in multiple places tells us that we are unbound from those.

So let's go back to Acts 15, in that little letter. The Jerusalem Consel wrote that it was not necessary to keep the Law (15:24), and that they wished to lay no greater burden upon the Gentile Christians except "these necessary things" (15:28). The reason Kosher laws weren't among "these necessary things" is, as I have indicated through Scripture, we are freed from them.

Did they throw out common morality because they did not deem it necessary for that epistle? Well, obviously not. I mean, first of all, they delivered the epistle by hand and stuck around to exhort and teach them (15:30-35). Secondly, come on, be realistic. Nobody's going to get that letter and go, "Oh, so I can go murder my mother now? Sweet!" They knew basic right from wrong.

So, again, I conclude by saying that, so far as I can tell, the general counsel of the Bible says that we are no longer bound by kosher laws. You, however, have every right to bind yourself to them, according to Romans 14, just as I have every right not to, from that same passage.

Michael

 

Double-post... stupid computer...

 

#1. Why would they have already been following the moral law of God? Is it because as pagan gentiles this was "their practice?". Or is it because "The WORD of God" is the product of the SPIRIT of God and they therefore LOVE to read the TRUTh - the WORD of TRUTH - "Scripture"??

I suggest that that "Christians" were following the "Scriptures" because they are the "WORD of GOD" and they "LOVE the Truth" as Christ points out pre-cross in John 14:1-14.

My argument here is "Christ was right".

#2. After having already admitted that "whatever is NOT repeated IS deleted" is NOT a form of exegesis you now claim to DELETE ALL of the Word of God given to the NT saints EXCEPT for 4 commands under that very same debunked rule that you already rejected.

How odd.

#3. A detailed reponse to my post would have to at least "comment" on the obvious fact that ALL THROUGH the NT MUCH MORE OT scripture is held up authoritatively THAN what we find in Acts 15. Your argument above is easily falsified by noting that MUCH MORE than the 4 statemetns given in Acts 15 is "quoted" from the OT by the NT saints as having "authority".

Really need to respond to that point instead of sidestepping it.

Here again your argument is "they do not read the scriptures, they do not know right from wrong so they continue in their old pagan ways - which HAPPEN to INCLUDE OBEDIENCE to all the OT moral laws - but nothing else".

Your argument is a failed one.

Acts 13 SHOWS pre-Christian "Gentiles" actively engaged in studying "The Word". They idea that they would abandon it - doing only those things that come "instinctively" from their old pagan way of life is foreign to scripture.

Their old way of life NOT ONLY included pagan practices regarding morality (or immorality) and idol worship but - pagans were not know to be focused on honoring parents, truth-telling, morality etc.

Notice that your argument is "from the void of what you do NOT read in Acts 15". Where we needed to see "pay no attion to the Scriptures" we find only the rejection of the SPECIFIC issue - on circumcision.

"To you" ? It it more accurate to say that you "infer" from the text that IN THE VOID of what is not said - you might have freedom to "pick and choose" within the OT.

Isn't it more exegetically sound to admit that the issue is circumcision in Acts 15? Making other stuff up about "eating rats and cats" simply won't fly there.


In Christ,

Bob

 

In Romans 14:1-5 the issue is "clearly stated again" as an issue between "vegetables only" vs the clean meats. The ONLY issue between "vegetables ONLY and Meats" was the one raised in Acts 15 "MEAT offerred to IDOLS" as "unclean". We see this same issue again in 1Cor 8.

Paul says "I will never eat meat AGAIN" if that is what it takes not to offend one who objects to meat "offered to IDOLS".

That is the ONLY "vegetables ONLY vs meat" issue in ALL of the NT!

This is one of those "inconvenient facts" that has to be ignored when working-Rom14 so that it should be an endorsement of "cat burgers" and "rat sandwiches".

But in fact - all efforts to spin Rom 14 around into "building a case for eating diseased rats" is simply misguided.

What IS interesting in both 1Cor 8 and Rom 14 is that EVEN though the Acts 15 council FORBIDS eating those clean meats offerred to idols - Paul is in favor of it as long as the person's conscience is not violated. But EVEN THEN he quickly states he would gladly "eat vegetables ONLY" to keep from offending those who WERE adhering to the Acts 15 rule in "meats offerred to idols"!

Again - you are imply ignoring Rom 14 as it speaks specifically to "vegetables ONLY" vs the one who eats meat.

This is NOT an OT question since obviously in the OT they "ate meat" and not "vegetables only". In fact eating meat was REQUIRED at Passover!

You have ignored so many inconvenient details in Romans 14 to make the case for crunching on kittens and puppies that I am suprised some as careful and detail oriented as you would fall for that.

here again is NO reference at ALL in Rom 14 to "the LAW". BOTH practices are fully APPROVED in Romans 14. "Eating vegetables only" AND "eating meat" that is offerred to idols.

your argument is to argue from the void of what the text does not say at all regarding "vegetables vs meat". An issue found only Rom 14 and 1Cor 8. The SAME issue in both cases. An issue where the Act 15 council is being UPHELD by the one who refuses meat offerred to idols!!

here again it would be wise not to "make stuff up" about the "scriptures" in 1Tim 3:15-16 or 1Tim 4. These "scriptures" are in fact the OT and Paul states that as a child they were read regularly to Timothy in 2Tim 1.

The food "SANCTIFIED" by the Word of God DID NOT include puppy and kitten snacks AND No rat-sandwiches!! This seems to come as a big shock to those who have their own goals when coming to these NT text.

In Acts 15 the statement is made of the gentiles that "from Sabbath to Sabbath Moses is preached" and we SEE this in the case of the GENTILES in Acts 13 as they meet "from Sabbath to Sabbath" to hear the Word of God preached - the scriptures. We see this again in Acts 17:1-4.

It is "hard to miss" unless you have that "cat-steak" agenda going.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In Romans 14:1-5 the issue is "clearly stated again" as an issue between "vegetables only" vs the clean meats. The ONLY issue between "vegetables ONLY and Meats" was the one raised in Acts 15 "MEAT offerred to IDOLS" as "unclean". We see this same issue again in 1Cor 8.

Paul says "I will never eat meat AGAIN" if that is what it takes not to offend one who objects to meat "offered to IDOLS".

That is the ONLY "vegetables ONLY vs meat" issue in ALL of the NT!

This is one of those "inconvenient facts" that has to be ignored when working-Rom14 so that it should be an endorsement of "cat burgers" and "rat sandwiches".

But in fact - all efforts to spin Rom 14 around into "building a case for eating diseased rats" is simply misguided.

What IS interesting in both 1Cor 8 and Rom 14 is that EVEN though the Acts 15 council FORBIDS eating those clean meats offerred to idols - Paul is in favor of it as long as the person's conscience is not violated. But EVEN THEN he quickly states he would gladly "eat vegetables ONLY" to keep from offending those who WERE adhering to the Acts 15 rule in "meats offerred to idols"!

Again - you are imply ignoring Rom 14 as it speaks specifically to "vegetables ONLY" vs the one who eats meat.

This is NOT an OT question since obviously in the OT they "ate meat" and not "vegetables only". In fact eating meat was REQUIRED at Passover!

You have ignored so many inconvenient details in Romans 14 to make the case for crunching on kittens and puppies that I am suprised some as careful and detail oriented as you would fall for that.

here again is NO reference at ALL in Rom 14 to "the LAW". BOTH practices are fully APPROVED in Romans 14. "Eating vegetables only" AND "eating meat" that is offerred to idols.

your argument is to argue from the void of what the text does not say at all regarding "vegetables vs meat". An issue found only Rom 14 and 1Cor 8. The SAME issue in both cases. An issue where the Act 15 council is being UPHELD by the one who refuses meat offerred to idols!!

here again it would be wise not to "make stuff up" about the "scriptures" in 1Tim 3:15-16 or 1Tim 4. These "scriptures" are in fact the OT and Paul states that as a child they were read regularly to Timothy in 2Tim 1.

The food "SANCTIFIED" by the Word of God DID NOT include puppy and kitten snacks AND No rat-sandwiches!! This seems to come as a big shock to those who have their own goals when coming to these NT text.

In Acts 15 the statement is made of the gentiles that "from Sabbath to Sabbath Moses is preached" and we SEE this in the case of the GENTILES in Acts 13 as they meet "from Sabbath to Sabbath" to hear the Word of God preached - the scriptures. We see this again in Acts 17:1-4.

It is "hard to miss" unless you have that "cat-steak" agenda going.

In Christ,

Bob

 

It is foolishness to bring one's personal preferences into a debate labeled as God's commandments. But of course it would then be easier to twist verses which talk about obedience to God's commandments.
The fact remains that this is a New Covenant in which we are not bound by ancient ceremonial laws. The Hebrews swore an oath to follow those laws-- I did no such thing. Their fathers swore the oath-- Mine did no such thing.
Now, I am going to post a single verse which I hope will stop the lunacy and ridiculous sham of theological discussion that has disgracefully passed as some of the material in this thread.

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

I would post the earlier verses in the chapter about judging Christians on grounds of food, but it seems that certain people can only handle one point at a time. So start with this one-- the GOSPEL is NOT affected by FOOD. To say otherwise calls Paul a liar, and by extention, God a fool for inspiring Paul to say so.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it (I'll have to check Leviticus 11 for corruptible mentionings on that now).

Blessings,
SpyHunter

 

Double-posted. Oops.

 

I think that when the Bible talks about various "meats and drinks" being something in the past and not applicable anymore, it is referring to rituals, and not diet.


Heb:9:10: Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

Heb:13:9: Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.

Because the health laws were not just arbitrarily imposed upon the people by God just for the heck of it. They were given to protect them from diseases.

The new testament says God wishes us to be in good health. The royal 10 commandment law is still in force, including Thou shalt not kill... not even kill yourself or shorted your own life by careless lifestyle.

The Bible also says whatever you eat and drink, do all to the glory of God 1Cor 10:31

I dont see how that could involve a new carelessness just because Jesus died for your sins.

Alot of the verses about meats and drinks are talking about food that has been sacrificed to idols and the term "meats" merely means "food" of all types. Its not talking about "meat" as in the way we think of it now... Like when Jesus said "My meat and drink is to do the will of My Father".. well He was not talking specifically about steaks and chicken thighs... He meant FOOD in general.

Many times in the new testament these verses about meat and drink merely means not to judge someone about what they do. Its not even talking about the rightness or wrongness of something, but about judging.

I just think that too many people get these scriptures about food all jumbled up and dont use common sense.

Honestly it reminds me of those people who do snake handling to prove they have faith in God.
When Jesus said you could not get hurt by a scorpion or a snake He didnt mean to run out and go pick some of them up.

Same thing with diet. Buzzards feed on the dead bodies of diseased animals. Too many think they can go out now and eat Buzzard Burgers and that if they just pray and ask God to bless it, He is going to magically prevent them from getting diseases. Common sense that God gave them seems to desert them "because Jesus died for their sins so now they are free to do as they please".

Well it doesnt work that way. "What you sow you will reap" Is still in operation today.

If you smoke cigarettes and you are a Christian theres a really good chance you are going to die of lung cancer, which my father in law would attest to if he were alive today, but hes not because he just died of lung cancer this Easter.

If you drink alcoholic beverages there's a good chance you are going to become a drunkard and get all the bad effects associated with it...

Sorry, but there arent any "Whores for Jesus"... Today Christians want to do all manner of sin and try to tack the name "Jesus" on the end of it, thinking this somehow will "sanctify" them... well, it doesnt.

Killing yourself slowly and then claiming you are doing it to glorify God just doesnt wash.

Claudia

[ May 04, 2006, 06:01 AM: Message edited by: Claudia_T ]

 

Claudia,
I understand your good intentions here. But they are YOUR intentions. My salvation is not contingent upon a healthy diet; if yours is, because eating a porkchop makes you stumble in faith, then so be it. But do not force another to stumble due to your lack of faith. I will do the same not to make you stumble by the liberty I have in eating a slice of Easter ham.
My point is that when personal preference and "good ideas" are raised to the level of essential doctrine and...gasp...morality.
Now, you seem to think that those outside your church are prone to eating roadkill or some unsanitary thing. I hate to tell you that beef can be just as unhealthy as pork, and even many fruits and vegetables available today are unhealthy (I have worked everywhere from grocery stores to food treatment and processing plants to the farms themselves-- I could tell stories that will scare you, from start to finish about how food gets from the farm/dairy to your dinner table). I do not eat unsanitary things. But I am not going to stumble in my faith if I have a cheeseburger or even if I have a glass of wine with my fish. If you do, then I will pray that you remain firm in your faith.
But
I do not raise my preferences to the point of absolute moral standards to which all others must conform. To do so-- as you are doing-- is wrong. I showed you why in Scripture. Please. Do the graceful thing. Do not judge your brothers and destroy what God has made for the sake of FOOD.

Blessings,
SpyHunter

 

*sigh* double-posted again...

 

It would have been better to actually respond to the NT texts given regarding the requirement of God's people NOT to rebel against His Word - NOT to rebel Against His own spoken Law etc - than to simply say that quoting God in this regard is "bad".

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3871/4.html#000048

Have another go at it.

Snippet-texting is not going to suffice as a "substitute" for exegesis or as a response to the actual NT texts given here in plentitude.

Christ speaks of the peace of God from the Holy Spirit (John 14) AND of our need to "keep My commandments" (John 14) IN THE SAMe chapter!

Instead of being in conflict - the Word of God turns out to be "in harmony".

This comes as a big shock to the snippet-text "one-text wonder" doctrinal models -- usually!

But the fact that you do have one text to "wander" about - is at least a sign that there is some part of God's Word that you value and I am happy to start there.

It is "something" at least.

In the Mean time the NT texts on the commandments of God "remain" as valid as "the rest of God's Word".

Dissappointing for some - but lets try to work with that for now.

In Christ,

Bob