What about that ham sandwich ?

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. </font>[/QUOTE]Eric,

I dont think it was a personal matter according to the Scriptures, but gald to know you're not eating pork.

Ron

 

Eesho M'sheekha has taking care of the entire OT for me, as well as anything added in the NT. I have been married to Christ and therefore dead to the law. You can read that in Romans 7. Praise His name!

God Bless!

 

In the OT, it wasn't, but in the NT it is. The Gentiles never kept the Levitical law, and there is no instruction for them to adopt it now. It is even omitted from the other similar restrictions of Acts 15 (the universal, Noahide laws)

 

For crying out loud! You still don't get my point with that example. I wasn't claiming that the Bible said the animals were not to be eaten as "punishment", or because they "had too much" of them. I was only giving an example of why an authority figure might declare certain food "may not" be eaten, to show that this was not the same as the food being "NOT EDIBLE". They are two different things, and all you are "refuting" is yur own misunderstandings of what is being said!

Look. 9:3 says they can eat EVERY animal. So then that "clean and unclean" must not have applied to food at that point; because not only were all allowed now; but when God first made that distinction, NONE were to be eaten, yet. So "clean and unclean" must have applied to SOMETHING ELSE. The only other thing it ever did apply to was sacrifice. So no, there is no command saying it was for sacrifice; but then we have here a verse that clearly tells us it did NOT apply to food, so the only thing it could have applied to at that point was sacrifice. This is not too difficult to understand.

 

A search for meat lockers or freezers will not bring up anything in any Bible version. Neither does grocery stores but all of the above will keep pork fresh and edible.

 

And the rats, cats, dogs and bats will remain tastey as well as long as you freeze them.

Still - it is a good point that health concerns would be there. Since there were no freezers around for the NT Gospel writers to draw out a morsel of rat or cat - you have to assume they still were not having the dog/horse/cat sandwich at that time.

In Christ,

Bob

 

But in your example you DO use these VERY ideas as EXAMPLES - punishment, or "your eating too much", or 'your too sick now'. So when using those examples you don't "Really mean" that ANY of them actually have anything to do with Lev 11 where we DO see Christ the Creator saying that the dog, cat, rat and bat "must not be eaten" and that this is the law about what is "edible" and what is not from Christ the Creator's POV.

Interesting.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In Act 15 the restriction against eating meat with blood in it is "pure Levitical law".

In the NT James and Christ and others quote the Lev law of 19:18 to Love your Neighbor as yourself.

The NT never says - "don't pay attention to something written in the Bible if it comes from Leviticus".

But you are right to say that the ceremonial laws were never applied to Gentiles as an obligation.

In Gal 2 Titus is not to be compelled to submit -- but in Acts 16 Timothy is. Clearly this is a case of a difference between Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles.

In Christ,

Bob

 

A confusing claim at best.

However "as it turns out" Christ the Creator "really did" set the dead animal, the rat,cat,dog and bat "off limits".

Your idea that "He did not really mean it" in Lev 11 is not supportable in scripture. Your idea that He said nothing in Lev 11 to prevent us from "chewing on them today" is also without Bible support.

Your idea that His distinction between good food and rats-cats-dogs-and-bats only existed for Jews and not others is refuted in Gen 7 before the flood and Gen 8 after the flood. (Both of which are long before the first Jew).

In Christ,

Bob

 

Praise indeed for in Romans 7 Paul says "I AGREE with the Law that it is holy just and good".

In Romans 7 Paul says "the LAW is spiritual -- but I am sold under sin".

In Romans 7 Paul says "With my MIND I AGREE with the Law of God -- but I see a different law waging war in my body. " He argues that HE is the one AGREEING with God's Word - God's Law.

In Romans 3:31 Paul says "DO we then make VOID the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW of God!"

In Romans 2:11-13 Paul says "For it is NOT the hearers of the law that are JUST before God but the DOERS of the Law will be JUSTIFIED".

He believed in "Faith that works" - as did Christ in Matt 7 who said "NOT everyone who SAYS Lord Lord will enter the kingdom but he who DOES..."

In Christ,

Bob

 

Christ said "pre-cross" -- "IF you LOVE Me KEEP My Commandments" in John 14.

Christ never argued "If you love Me - rebel against the Word of God".

Surely you agree with this too.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Read my response again: "I was only giving an example of why an authority figure might declare certain food 'may not' be eaten, to show that this was not the same as the food being 'NOT EDIBLE'". Pretty simple.

NO; it was from Gen.9:4. This was one of the universal laws of Noah. Of course, they were later included in the Mosaic/levitical laws.

And that too is a universal command; and not only that, but the summation of the principles of the last 6 of te 10 Commands, as Jesus shows.

I never said that it did. That's your assumption.

And once the Temple was gone, even that "difference" would be gone. This I learned from our debate with the preterists.

So you continue to ignore the truth that has been brought out so far. Clean and unclean at that point were not about eating, for no animals were eaten at that time, and then later in 9:3, all animals were allowed.
But I guess "He didn't really mean that"; right?
What I said was not that He didn't mean the command, but that it was a temporary legal restriction meant to teach a particular lesson (clean and unclean are really spiritual)

 

There you have it!

God Bless!

 

Paul said also... "by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal 2:16)

Which way is it

God Bless!