What about that ham sandwich ?

No, You pretty clearly contradicted the teachings of Paul, I got that.

 

Sorry, "Edible" is not in the text. All we see is "clean". I'll have to look to see if there was a command on spoiled meat later, but as Bob even pointed out, dead clean animals were also "unclean", along with meat thet touched unclean meat, etc. uncleanness was a spiritual designation, not a physical condition of edibility. Now, clean meat laced with poison would not be said to be "unclean", but THAT would not be "inedible".

 

I did not say that the text stated EDIBLE, I was just giving you my take on what we are to eat and I think I made it very clear.

WE ARE NOT TO EAT ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THE LAW OF LEVITICUS. That's what I say, and so does the Bible!

Ron

 

In what way? See people like you ....*edited*

Ron, you have violated this rule which you agreed to when you joined this forum:

[ December 26, 2004, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

still, you do not keep all of leviticus. We cannot pick and choose which cmmands we will keep following.

 

still, you do not keep all of leviticus. We cannot pick and choose which cmmands we will keep following. </font>[/QUOTE]Well thanks Eric B, You go on and eat that Pork Sandwich and those Babyback Jack Daniels Ribs ok. To each His own!

Ron

 

Ron, do you keep all the laws of Leviticus?

God Bless!

 

still, you do not keep all of leviticus. We cannot pick and choose which cmmands we will keep following. </font>[/QUOTE]What did Paul say? Now, like I said if you want to eat Pork Sandwiches, go ahead. I for one will adhere to the teaching of the Foundation of the Church, the Apostles. Again To each his own, Christianity is a Choice!

Ron

 

Superdave, why don't you clearly show me what I contradicted. Don't hit and run! If you cannot produce Your cause them don't comment, it does not prove that you are aware of the doctrine because you make a silly comment like that without anything else to back it up. It's sad I tell you Sad!

Gina how was that! I see that you will be attacking my post whenever you can because I have set straight some false doctrines that have been followed by you. I appreciate the attention.

SUPERDAVE ante up!

Ron

 

As long as you continue to break the forum rules I will continue to edit your posts Ron.
False doctrine? A few doctrines you're ignoring straight outta the Bible are reflected in these verses:


EPH 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

EPH 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

EPH 4:31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:

EPH 4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.


ACTS 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

ACTS 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

ACTS 15:26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

ACTS 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

Who has sent you to teach us? Nobody. You have no authority to come into this group of believers and attempt to exercise authority in teaching.
How do I know you are a false teacher? You show no grace to others. You are arrogant, rude, and prideful. Your manner is causing disruption and anger in the body of Christ. These are not the attributes of a servant of God. If you are not of God you are of Satan, and have no place among those seeking to worship and follow Christ.
The things you are doing will bring consequences down on you. God doesn't take kindly to those who seek to cause harm to His children and make them stumble, which is what you are doing.
Search your heart and do what is required of you by the Spirit.
Gina

 

ouch.

 

I do not keep the law(s) of:

1. burnt offering 6:9

2. meat offering 6:14

3. sin offering 6:25

4. trespass offering 7:1

5. peace offerings 7:11

6. Law of circumcision 12:2 (but as it is for health reason)

7. Leprosy 14:32-57

Just to name a few!

But the Laws I do follow are the one along the lines of sleeping with my mother-in-law, not stealing and food I should not eat etc., I'm sure you know what I mean! I HOPE YOU FOLLOW THE SAME ONES I DO.

The other ones above are ceremonial and Eesho M'sheekha has taking care of those for me. What you did'nt think I would answer?

Now tell me do you follow the Law of Leviticus, Steaver? Hope to hear from ya.

Ron

 

That will work on the weak ones, but not I!

2 Timothy 3:16
16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof , for correction , for instruction in righteousness:

2 Timothy 4:2-3
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season ; reprove , rebuke , exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine ; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears ;

Sound like some I know!

Strong's Greek Definition for # 1651

1651 // elegcw // elegcho // el-eng'-kho //

of uncertain affinity; TDNT - 2:473,221; v

AV - reprove 6, rebuke 5, convince 4, tell (one's) fault 1,
convict 1; 17

1) to convict , refute , confute
1a) generally with a suggestion of shame of the person convicted
1b) by conviction to bring to the l ight, to expose
2) to find fault with , correct
2a) by word
2a1) to reprehend severely , chide, admonish, reprove
2a2) to call to account, show one his fault , demand an explanation
2b) by deed
2b1) to chasten , to punish



Ron

 

Tatertot,

Look above You learn something everyday.

I wait when people try to use the word to shut people up that exposed their false doctrine like the one I exposed about the Jews, that Gina does not like.

Now that hurt!

Ron

 

That will work on the weak ones, but not I!

2 Timothy 3:16
16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof , for correction , for instruction in righteousness:

2 Timothy 4:2-3
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season ; reprove , rebuke , exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine ; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears ;

Sound like some I know!

Strong's Greek Definition for # 1651

1651 // elegcw // elegcho // el-eng'-kho //

of uncertain affinity; TDNT - 2:473,221; v

AV - reprove 6, rebuke 5, convince 4, tell (one's) fault 1,
convict 1; 17

1) to convict , refute , confute
1a) generally with a suggestion of shame of the person convicted
1b) by conviction to bring to the l ight, to expose
2) to find fault with , correct
2a) by word
2a1) to reprehend severely , chide, admonish, reprove
2a2) to call to account, show one his fault , demand an explanation
2b) by deed
2b1) to chasten , to punish



Ron </font>[/QUOTE]For those weak in arrogance, yes.
I urge you to read my message again.
You are not a teacher. You are not giving out sound doctrine, and your manner along with your refusal to look into your own heart testify to that as truth.
You have not come to this board with the heart of a servant, you have come to gloat in what you suppose in your own mind to be truth, not seeking to study and not offering the word that is in the Word, but that which is in your own mind.
That is obvious in your attitude, your speech, and your mocking of such serious concerns.
Search your heart and do what is required of you by the Spirit.
Gina

 

Well when speaking of handeling dead animals and not eating what dies of itself etc it is certainly "not punishment".

When speaking of the rat sandwich it is certainly "not because they have had wayyy too many rats already".

When speaking of the cat sandwich it is not because "they are just too sick currently to bite into that cat sandwich".

When saying that EVEN CLEAN ANIMALS a are problem if you find a dead animal and just eat it -- it is not "Christ the Creator getting lucky when specifying symbolism and happens to land on something that really IS a problem"

You point out that just because you come upon a dead animal and God says it MAY not be eaten - does NOT mean that you CAN NOT physically chew on it "anyway" and swallow.

True enough.


In summary God calls this section HIS view of what may be eaten – and what should not be eaten at all.

Clearly then the rat, cat, dog and bat sandwich “is not to be eaten”, and mankind can freely read and know this.

Christ the Creator did not say “please do not eat “too much” of the rat, dog, and cat sandwich”. Nor did He argue “because you are in poor health today - then for a while you may not eat of the rat, cat, dog and bat sandwich”. All such edits of the text are merely “wishful thinking”.

While it is true that upon finding a dead rat you are "able" to pick it up and chew on it - the question is -- what does Christ the Creator SAY about that? What is HIS view of that? And the answer is clear -- it MUST NOT be eaten - just as the Lev 11 text says.

That dead rat then is the creature which is NOT to be eaten - according to the Lev 11 text.

Can't make a sandwich of it nor a roast nor a burger nor a salad. That dead rat and cat are simply off limits.

A hard lesson in some far eastern countries - but it does not make it any less a truth in God's Word.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That will work on the weak ones, but not I!

2 Timothy 3:16
16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof , for correction , for instruction in righteousness:

2 Timothy 4:2-3
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season ; reprove , rebuke , exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine ; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears ;

Sound like some I know!

Strong's Greek Definition for # 1651

1651 // elegcw // elegcho // el-eng'-kho //

of uncertain affinity; TDNT - 2:473,221; v

AV - reprove 6, rebuke 5, convince 4, tell (one's) fault 1,
convict 1; 17

1) to convict , refute , confute
1a) generally with a suggestion of shame of the person convicted
1b) by conviction to bring to the l ight, to expose
2) to find fault with , correct
2a) by word
2a1) to reprehend severely , chide, admonish, reprove
2a2) to call to account, show one his fault , demand an explanation
2b) by deed
2b1) to chasten , to punish



Ron </font>[/QUOTE]For those weak in arrogance, yes.
I urge you to read my message again.
You are not a teacher. You are not giving out sound doctrine, and your manner along with your refusal to look into your own heart testify to that as truth.
You have not come to this board with the heart of a servant, you have come to gloat in what you suppose in your own mind to be truth, not seeking to study and not offering the word that is in the Word, but that which is in your own mind.
That is obvious in your attitude, your speech, and your mocking of such serious concerns.
Search your heart and do what is required of you by the Spirit.
Gina </font>[/QUOTE]I may not be a teacher but I am giving out sound doctrine. You went up against me and could not refute it, did you.

It would be different if I did not knew you were better becaue you have been following false doctrine, and I exposed it so.

Ron

 

I did not go up against you in any matters that I can recall. If I did please point out where. The only contact I have had with you that I remember apart from editing caustic remarks of yours were

1. Asking you what you call Israeli's

2. Commenting that I agreed with you on stars being given partly for signs

Search your heart and do what is required of you by the Spirit.
This is the last time I will post that warning.
Gina

 

Clean and unclean animal “distinction” exists before the flood.

The distinction was still there AFTER the flood

There is not "enough detail in the text" to know all that was done with that distinction before the flood - but certainly your argument that they did not eat unclean animals before the flood (either because they knew them to be unclean or because they were all vegetarian) is likely.

The thing we "don't have" pre-flood is "This is the law for unclean animals THESE may NOT be sacrifices unto God" -- that is not written in the text anywhere.

But clearly you are correct that not only were those dogs, cats, bats and rats not to be eaten before the flood - they were also not to be offerred in sacrifice to God.

The issue of clean and unclean as it relates to dead animals - is the same for clean and unclean animals -- no distinction. When you come upon an animal that dies of itself - it is considered unclean.

Christ the creator knew what He was talking about -- as it turns out.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Actually, I do not eat pork, and haven't in 18 years. Back then, I was influenced by sabbatarian groups, but then I came to learn that those laws were not binding on NT Christians, the SDA, Armstrong, Messianic, and all others' arguments could not stand up to scripture without reinterpreting it to deflect its true meaning regarding the Law; and that the whole point in trumping up thee "commandments" nobody else kept was to make onesself better than all those ["disobedient"] other Christians. But since I had found alternatives to pork, and could live without it; I have kept avoiding it.
So no, this is not about justifying one's own diet; it is about the truth of New Testament revelation, and senseless carnal division over what Paul says (yes, what did Paul say?) is a personal matter.