-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Bacon eaters! Do you see?
- Thread starter steaver
- Start date
- Status
>>"You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them."
>indicating unclean food.
Gentiles can purchase kosher food.
Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between "rotten" and "ritually unclean" needs to do some homework.
Over ripe kosher veggies are not unclean else there could not be kosher kim chee. Then there is lutefisk . . . .
>indicating unclean food.
Gentiles can purchase kosher food.
Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between "rotten" and "ritually unclean" needs to do some homework.
Over ripe kosher veggies are not unclean else there could not be kosher kim chee. Then there is lutefisk . . . .
Diseased beef is not good for you either, yet that is not mentioned in Leviticus 11. Our governments are smart enough not to allow diseased meat into the food chain by destroying all cattle which had "mad cow" disease. Bob you are not even using your brain here.
Pork is an entirely safe meat here. It is not diseased. The Lord declared it to be so. It is not inherently diseased. The Lord never said that. He declared that the Israelites would have a special diet to make them different from all the nations of the world. It was not specific to their health, although there may have been some health reasons there. Even with pork, any pork cooked well is safe for human consumption. That is a scientific fact. If you don't believe that, you are living in the dark ages.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Trichinosis is primarily contracted from undercooked or improperly cooked meat, especially pork. We now know that undercooking meat is dangerous. Also, we have refrigeration which wasn't available when the prohibition of this food was given. I think this is definately an example of needing to interpret scripture within the historical context that it was written.
"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this. Jesus declared all foods "clean.") Mark 7:18-20 NIV
"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this. Jesus declared all foods "clean.") Mark 7:18-20 NIV
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
DHK said:Originally Posted by DHK
1 Timothy 4:3-5 forbidding marriage and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving.
5 For it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer. (WEB)
Let's restate verse four again:
Bob said:
To the contrary - Lev 11 forbids the eating of any diseased animal - clean or unclean. It is very specific.
The text does not say "do not eat a diseased rat if you find one" rather it says not to eat any diseased animal it does not matter if it is rat, cat, dog or sheep. The same goes for any animal that dies of itself.
Thus trying to toss God's Word out the window just because you might favor a rat sandwich etc - just does not work in this case.
DHK said:
What a great thing! So I guess they too would not want us to ignore what we find in Lev 11 in that regard.
It specifically forbids the eating of diseased animals as well as forbidding the eating of rats cats dogs bats - etc.
Lev 11 places no approval on the eating of diseased animals thus it also forbids the eating of diseased sheep, cows, bulls, goats etc.
You are free to suppose that forbidding such things has nothing to do with health if that is where your view of God's Word "needs" you to go.
(As I recall - recently someone here suggested that the OT saints were not supposed to eat diseased animals as some kind of "ceremony")
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
Steaver- you clarified your own point - saying that the person in that "diseased flesh" and "rat sandwich" scenario was in an act of open rebellion against God's Word.
I am wondering if those who are responding to your baited question - know that this is how you have actually positioned the point.Originally Posted by steaver
Indeed I get the idea and it helps a great deal. :thumbs:
I must say I stand corrected in my thoughts. I thought for sure you would not be willing to say that the person in my hypothetical would be going to hell.
This is exactly what I purposed to expose in the SDA teachings. The SDA believes that even though a person has faith in God and has been born of God this faith is void if the person dies in an act of rebellion against God (sin).
This is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Just curious.
in Christ,
Bob
From the responses thus far I believe you might be correct. The OP is designed as you said, to address the SDA doctrine that preaches if a person dies in an act of rebellion against God (sin) this person is a liar and will not be seeing eternal life.
Whether or not God has ended the no swine commandment is a secondary point on this issue.
Couple of questions for you Bob;
How long have you been a Christian?
Have you known a commandment of God and chose to break it?
How long now since your last known sin of choice, knowing the commandment prior to the sin?
:jesus:
Bob, are you consistent with the law?
So far you have been referring only to the dietary law.
What about the laws concerning clothing?
If you are to apply dietary laws to yourself you must also apply the law in other areas of personal care.
Deuteronomy 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.
The principle here is that one could not wear anything made of more than one fabric. You either had to dress all in linen or all in wool, or all in cotton, etc. Today, you would not be allowed polyester blends (most shirts), blended wools (with rayon quite often), denim, cotton and polyester, acryllic and polyester, etc. etc. Just take a look at some of the tags in your clothing. Do you wear all of one type of clothing? Is it all wool, all cotton, all of one kind of material? I doubt it.
Therefore you are hypocritical in keeping the law. If you can't keep the law in this area--the area of clothing, it is obvious you can't keep dietary laws either. Both must be observed or you are hypocritical.
If one should keep the whole law and yet offends in one point he is guilty of all.
You are guilty of all.
So far you have been referring only to the dietary law.
What about the laws concerning clothing?
If you are to apply dietary laws to yourself you must also apply the law in other areas of personal care.
Deuteronomy 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.
The principle here is that one could not wear anything made of more than one fabric. You either had to dress all in linen or all in wool, or all in cotton, etc. Today, you would not be allowed polyester blends (most shirts), blended wools (with rayon quite often), denim, cotton and polyester, acryllic and polyester, etc. etc. Just take a look at some of the tags in your clothing. Do you wear all of one type of clothing? Is it all wool, all cotton, all of one kind of material? I doubt it.
Therefore you are hypocritical in keeping the law. If you can't keep the law in this area--the area of clothing, it is obvious you can't keep dietary laws either. Both must be observed or you are hypocritical.
If one should keep the whole law and yet offends in one point he is guilty of all.
You are guilty of all.
Nowhere in Leviticus will you find God calling these forbidden foods "diseased". Can you provide a verse?
"Unclean" is defined as follows;
1) unclean, impure
a) ethically and religiously
b) ritually
c) of places
No "disseased" mentioned.
"Abomination" is defined as follows; 1) detestable thing or idol, an unclean thing, an abomination, detestation.
No "diseased" mentioned.
Please provide an exegesis that shows these animals are "diseased".
:jesus:
From Mark Chapter 7
15There 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.
16If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
17And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
18And 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;
19Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? 20And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. m
15There 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.
16If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
17And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
18And 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;
19Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? 20And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. m
I see a few votes of "no" to the OP poll question.
Here is the passage for those who have not yet seen.
Lev 11:1¶And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
Lev 11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These [are] the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that [are] on the earth.
Lev 11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: [as] the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you.
Lev 11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you.
Remember, the poll question is not asking if you believe it is to be obeyed for you as a Christian today. It only ask if you see God forbid the eating of swine in Lev 11?
SDA teaching says that if you see God forbid swine eating in Lev 11 then you are breaking one of Jesus' commandments if you still choose to eat it. If you do choose to eat swine after seeing that God forbid swine eating in Lev 11 then you are a liar for saying you are a Christian.
This is the point of the OP. To expose the false gospel being preached by the SDA church. To the SDA, faith in Christ is not genuine unless the law that is seen or heard is obeyed by the professing Christian.
In other words, faith equals obedience to the law. No obedience to the law, no salvation. This is exactly what the Galatians were scolded for preaching. Paul called it "another gospel" a "perverted gospel" and said some pretty serious words agianst it.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
This is a very serious warning. I would hope and pray that those caught up in the SDA movement would seriously consider what they are aligning themselves with. It is not just a matter of Christian differences. Either faith in Christ saves or the law saves. It cannot be both and the SDA even goes beyond saying it is both and goes as far as to say that obedience to the law is what proves one's faith in Christ. This is NOT the gospel of Jesus Christ.
:jesus:
Here is the passage for those who have not yet seen.
Lev 11:1¶And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
Lev 11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These [are] the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that [are] on the earth.
Lev 11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: [as] the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you.
Lev 11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you.
Remember, the poll question is not asking if you believe it is to be obeyed for you as a Christian today. It only ask if you see God forbid the eating of swine in Lev 11?
SDA teaching says that if you see God forbid swine eating in Lev 11 then you are breaking one of Jesus' commandments if you still choose to eat it. If you do choose to eat swine after seeing that God forbid swine eating in Lev 11 then you are a liar for saying you are a Christian.
This is the point of the OP. To expose the false gospel being preached by the SDA church. To the SDA, faith in Christ is not genuine unless the law that is seen or heard is obeyed by the professing Christian.
In other words, faith equals obedience to the law. No obedience to the law, no salvation. This is exactly what the Galatians were scolded for preaching. Paul called it "another gospel" a "perverted gospel" and said some pretty serious words agianst it.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
This is a very serious warning. I would hope and pray that those caught up in the SDA movement would seriously consider what they are aligning themselves with. It is not just a matter of Christian differences. Either faith in Christ saves or the law saves. It cannot be both and the SDA even goes beyond saying it is both and goes as far as to say that obedience to the law is what proves one's faith in Christ. This is NOT the gospel of Jesus Christ.
:jesus:
Last edited by a moderator:
Both translations are correct.
I believe the word purgatory is related to purge: purg-a-tory--a place where one is (supposedly) purified (purged) from their sins.
quantumfaith
Active Member
quantumfaith
Active Member
Hey Bob,
How about oysters, crab legs, flounder, trigger fish etc.?
How about oysters, crab legs, flounder, trigger fish etc.?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I think Lev 11 says something about "fins and scales" when it comes to fish - so no eels, no squid etc.
Read that part of God's Word and let me know if I am in error.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Mark 7 is a debate about eating "WHEAT" with unbaptized hands. Christ complains in Mark 7 that they are setting aside the commandments of God to teach the traditions of men.
He then points out - as in the case above - that sin does not enter the body through the eating of things like wheat with unbaptized hands.
Thus long after the Matt 7 event - in Acts 10 Peter continues to affirm 3 times before God Himself - that he has remained faithful to the Word of God specific to Lev 11.
in Christ,
Bob
- Status