The Dietary Laws

Our sin demands a blood sacrifice Hebrews tells us this "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." So would this be a sin or murder?

 

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Hebrews 11:18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
Hebrews 11:19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

God didn't let him sacrifice his son though...

Genesis 22:10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
Genesis 22:11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
Genesis 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
Genesis 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

nate: Isn't sin and murder the same thing?

SMM

 

Snitzelhoff,


The point I am trying to make is that many times God says something He doesnt actually mean. For various reasons.

Just because God told Peter to kill and eat some unlcean animals does not necessarily mean He actually meant for him to do that.

Just like when Solomon told his servant to cut the kid in half, he didnt really mean for him to do that... Solomon WAS TRYING TO MAKE A POINT!!!

And just like God told Abraham to kill his son, Issac, God really didnt intend on having him do that, once again, God WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE A POINT!!

Im just trying to show you that this does happen sometimes in the Bible.


If that was done in other instances then it is really that hard to believe that God did that in this case too? Its not out of the question, is it?

Claudia

 

So, Claudia, did God command Peter to sin? Was Peter right in defying the command of God?

 

Nowhere in the NT does it say I can't eat Pork.
Anyway gi'me my bacon and sausage.

 

That's sort of like saying the three men in Daniel were not really in the fire. They were just close to, nearby so they could warm their hands. They really didn't mean they were IN the fire......

Could we have E.B. White, chapter and verse on that one?

Cheers,

Jim

 

This is a good post example arguing FOR the "cat rat dog bat" diet saying that absolutely nothing should be forbidden.

By contrast God specifically points to beef, lamb, chicken, salmon and sea bass as "food" and to "rats, cats, lizards, snakes and bats" as NOT food.

This seems to be a hardship for some.

In Romans 14 we "already saw" that the issue is "meats offerred to idols" VS "VEGETABLES ONLY" NOT the issue of "Rats" vs "BEEF" as you would have it!

Why keep ignoring those details?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I have no seen any reason at all to ignore the Romans 14 fact that the issue is about eating "only VEGETABLES" vs eating MEAT. I see no reason to ignore that EVEN though it is an "inconvenient detail" to those who want Romans 14 to be about "eating RATS in addtion to BEEF".

I see NO REASON to ignore the detail in Mark 7 about UNCLEAN BREAD where SIN is "getting on food" and is declared to be nothing but a "man made tradition". Those who want to spin Mark 7 around AS IF it is a debate about "eating RATS in addtion to BEEF" seem to fail to even begin to exegete the chapter.

Why "pretend" to be in the dark folks?? This just isn't that hard.

Rats, cats, dogs and bats -- are not the food that God recommends in Lev 11. Sorry.

Beef, chicken, lamb, salmon and sea bass will just have to do for those who care about God's word in Lev 11 and they will be doing with the "rats, cats, dogs and bats" as snacks. Oh well. This may not sit well with some people in Asia and a few souls on this board - but most people just don't "need to eat rats" so bad that they would abolish God's word to do it!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, were you attempting to make a point by repeating what you stated earlier? I responded to that post. You say Romans 14 was talking about "meats offered to idols." The text says no such thing. In fact, the text says "all things." In your own words:

Michael

 

Romans 14 begins with reference to the 1Cor 8 issue of vegetables-only vs meats offered to idols.

The Context for the food discussion on weak vs strong faith that results in "Vegetables ONLY" vs "eating meat" - is about meat offered to idols.

In the 1 Cor 8 example the “Jew” is the one that KNOWS there is only one REAL God. The gentile is the one who thinks that the idols are competing gods.

This is the ONLY NT text giving us "detail" on the "VEGETABLES ONLY" controversy vs "eating Meat"! And it is clearly NOT a Lev 11 issue!

This is the ONLY text in the NT explaining how it is that "he who HAS faith" and knowledge can possibly wound the one who "eats vegetables only".

This then is the CONTEXT for the SAME points being discussed in Romans 14.

Clearly the first case is the one who is strong in faith - the SECOND case is the one who is weak.

(Of course there was NO law among the Jews demanding that they eat only vegetables. This discussion is over eating foods sacrificed to idols 1Cor 8).

And so in the "first example"

#1. The principle is shown to be between the Strong vs the Weak

#2. The issue if food - (vegetarian vs meat eating) but the reason for the differences is not given explicitly

#3. The issues is not connected in any way to an Old Testament command at first review.

#4 The Issue defined
But on closer inspection we DO find a New Testament issue being argued - that of being vegeterian BECAUSE one does not want to eath meat that has been offerred to idols. All meat is not "unclean" in the OT - but Meat offered to Idols is forbidden by the Acts 15 council and "unclean".

Paul identifies this more clearly in Romans chapter 14

Still in that case the FIRST example is that of the strong in faith - one who eats the meat (as 1 Cor 8 says - knowing that idols are nothing).

That one “with knowledge” would be the "jew" in 1Cor 8 - for the Gentile pagan has been raised to view eating meat offerred to idols as having meaning and that the idols themselves are false gods - but gods none-the-less.

Instead of Romans 14 urging us to “eat more rats, cats, dogs and bats and no longer just eat beef, chicken, salmon and sea bass” Romans 14 is speaking about “eating vegetables only” vs eating meats offered to idols. (the very thing that Acts 15 forbids BTW)

[ May 10, 2006, 03:21 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

#1. Try actually quoting the points made from Rom 14 (in that post) that so directly refute your views on rats vs beef.

#2. Try not repeatedly glossing over the obvious fact that this is "vegetables ONLY" vs "meat" AND NOT the "inserted" idea of yours regarding "adding rats to the table" and not "just beef". It is not a discusion BETWEEN MEATS of various kinds in Rom 14 (obviously) it is a discussion about "vegetables ONLY" vs meat! that is NOT a Lev 11 issue at all!! (obviously)

#3. If you simply gloss over and ignore those parts of Romans 14 that do not please you - I am inclined to repeatedly post what you repeatedly need to ignore in that particular chapter of Scripture.

See?

 

Like this one?

All right. Word of Bob, meet Word of God:

Romans 14:2 says this is about "all things" versus vegetables.

Romans 14:14 says this is about "nothing" being unclean.

Romans 14:20 says this is about "all things."

All right, so, let's see where you justified the statement that idols are at all involved in this passage.

Again, word of Bob, let me introduce you to the Word of God.

Romans 14:1 says this is about "him who is weak in the faith" and "doubtful disputations." I'm not seeing a reference to I Corinthians or idols.

You repeated that already. You still haven't shown me where that is in the text. I'm still seeing a conflict between the word of Bob and the Word of God.

I Corinthians 8 has to do with food sacrificed to idols. Romans 14 makes no such specification. The two passages have completely different contexts.

Yep.

Actually, I Corinthians 8 has nothing to do with eating vegetables only. That, again, is the word of Bob. The whole passage (the Word of God, the thing I'm interested in studying) is about eating things sacrificed to idols. The eating of vegetables only as an alternative is not mentioned.

Again, you pulled "vegetables only" from Romans 14 and shoehorned it into the I Corinthians 8 passage. I thought you liked good exegesis. Now, Romans 14 is fairly clear that the way one wounds another is through judgment (14:3).

Same principle of not judging based on food. Romans 14 expands that to "all things."

All true points till you get to number four. Idols are not mentioned in the text. They're not mentioned anywhere near the text. You had to go to another book to pull out a passage that mentioned idols. The text says "all things."

Actually, I just went with the text when it says "all things." I know that doesn't please people who wish to bind us to never using appliances or kitchenware that have had pork cooked on them, but, hey, that's the Word. I chose not to go with an "inserted idea" that "all things" means something other than "all things."

Except there's nothing in Romans 14 that limits "all things." Sorry, but I'm afraid you're citing the word of Bob again, and I'm really not interested in that.

So, tell me again: what does "all things" mean, since it doesn't mean "all things"? And did God command Peter to sin? And did Peter do right in defying that command of God?

Michael

 

maybe i am being naive,but i was always (and PLEASE if i am wrong, correct me here) that Jesus came, among other things (salvation) to give us a "new" set of laws (the Word in the new testament) to live, guide our lives, and not that it cancells out the old testament, but that if anything in the new testament contradicts the old, then we use the new testament as the guide?

 

#1. There is NOTHING in Lev 11 about "eating vegetables only. So trying to spin the "vegetables only" argument of Romans 14 into "Lev 11" could never work in all of time. "Obviously".

#2. 1Cor 8 is the ONLY text that deals with the issues of strong-vs-weak faith relating to meat vs NO MEAT AT ALL (Vegetables only)- outside of Romans 14!!

1Cor 8:13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble

Paul said

Bob said -

That sequence could be repeated all day long to my utter satisfaction!

Why not simply address the point Michael?!

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. IF "God's Word contradicts God's Word" then we have a huge problem.

#2. The OT is called "Scripture" by the NT writers. If we can "dump scripture" then a "pick-and-choose" RC system would be perfectly acceptable.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Your "cat rat dog bat" argument above was already dealt with here --

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3922/10.html#000148

It was also dealt with in detail in the Rom 14 review.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3922/11.html#000151

You leave us with a "sequence" where you directly contradict 1Cor 8 and try to ignore the detailed context of 1Cor 8 for Romans 14.

you also "ignore" the fact that there is NO CONTEXT at ALL in Lev 11 topics for the "Vegetables ONLY" dispute in Romans 14!

You then "pretend" that those inconvenient details should not be highlighted to expose the gaps in your argument!

How do you expect that tactic to work with someone that is not inclined to turn a blind eye to the text?


In Christ,

Bob

 

Hello Jim,

That's E.G. White, not E.B. White.

I would like to try to view you as a man of integrity and honesty.

And so since apparently you are going to keep on bringing up Ellen White frequently as you can to use that in a derogatory sense, I believe in an effort of fairness that she ought to be able to -in a sense- speak for herself.

And so from now on when you make your remarks about Ellen White could you please include a URL reference to her public writings so that people can read for themselves and make up their own minds about her?


Like this:

Ellen White's Public Books

Ellen White's Role in the Seventh Day Adventist Church

Im sure you wouldnt have any objections to that, right? since you are a man of good ethical stanards.

And if you are going to continue on using her in a deriding sense, the good people on this Message Board ought to have their chance to read up for themselves on her so that they can make up their own minds about her prophetic gift.

Like Gekko for instance, he doesnt have a clue who E.G. White is.

That would solve everything for me and make it seem like at least you were being fair... if you are going to constantly try to use her as a weapon, even though I have presented Bible verses for my positions here. And even though Ellen White doesnt have one thing to do with my views I have presented here on the dietary laws.


Ok? Thanks, you're a great guy and I knew I could count on your fairness and integrity.


That way we can both be happy, you can still get in your digs every chance you get and I can still be able to feel like you are a fair and honest man and like EG White is not being unfairly portrayed.


Claudia

 

#1. IF "God's Word contradicts God's Word" then we have a huge problem.

#2. The OT is called "Scripture" by the NT writers. If we can "dump scripture" then a "pick-and-choose" RC system would be perfectly acceptable.

In Christ,

Bob [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Well in the old,stoning was the penalty for adultry,and in the new Jesus stops a stoning, so.....