Bacon eaters! Do you see?

[Bone]

I am always hearing about the fellow sitting next to me ... But I have never met one of them who admits to being "the weaker brother". They always think they are being the stronger believer because they refuse to eat or whatever. Where are these weaker brethren who are offended by my meal of pulled pork?

What he said:applause:. Being in the military I'm used to being around people from all backgrounds and beliefs. So far, I've never met a fellow Christian who took offense to me eating certain foods (we eat some nasty things in survival school). If there ever is a time when a brother takes offense to me eating pork I have no problem switching to something else. I will however, try to explain to him why there is no dietary restriction for Christians.

 

[BobRyan]

So I gave you a summary of a few of my posts providing the answers - time after time.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1543056&postcount=162

And also my last post stated the answer as well - differentiating between one woven cloth vs layered clothing. It is a pretty simple topic.

What am I missing - where is the difficulty in reading that answer?

Finally, an answer !! How refreshing !

Turns out - there is just no substitute for actually reading the posts.

How so?

But what is far worse for your entire line of questioning is that even if I HAD NOT given you those answers (such that now you are without any excuse at all) you STILL were at a dead stop because your rather odd position that is of the form "I dishonor my parents and that is ok - since I know a john williams that covets some days" is NOT a Bible position on anything!

DHK's recent efforts to try and come up with an actual Bible case (from Eph 2:14-15 for example) that represents an actual Bible position (though I think a careful study of the text that I provide here - shows your position to be in error - AT LEAST it is a Bible position rather than simply toying around while making stuff up).



.... Surely there would have been ONE baptist who would stand and be counted and say "hey wait a minute! That is no Bible position at all!".

Thus the papal argument that says - my pope covets so I get to dishonor my parents -- is no Bible argument at all.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not a wilderness wandering Isrealite to be set aside from all other nations so...pass the ham and bacon sandwiches with a side order of fried Gulf shrimp! Christ himself said I could.:smilewinkgrin:

Lev 11 condemns eating rats and diseased meats - some like to "imagine" that such things would only be a problem for Jews.

Lev 19:18 commands us to "Love our Neighbor as yourselves" -- again we have the same book written to the same people - stated to be "The Word of God".

Sadly the rat-sandwich idea does not die easily no matter how illusive the logic that says "believe Lev 19 - but only vs 18 of that chapter".

The slice-and-dice pick and choose approach to scripture was not approved of in Mark 7:1-9

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Bone]

What we eat does not make us unclean but what is in our hearts. I think that's in there too. Also, I'm a Gentile, not a Jew.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What we eat does not make us unclean but what is in our hearts. I think that's in there too. Also, I'm a Gentile, not a Jew.

I don't know. I've always been raised to believe "I am what I eat".

 

[Tom Bryant]

I don't know. I've always been raised to believe "I am what I eat".

uh-oh.... So I'm a $5 foot long spicy Italian sandwich?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

uh-oh.... So I'm a $5 foot long spicy Italian sandwich?

Very Likely. :tongue3:

 

[DHK]

Lev 11 condemns eating rats and diseased meats - some like to "imagine" that such things would only be a problem for Jews.

Lev 19:18 commands us to "Love our Neighbor as yourselves" -- again we have the same book written to the same people - stated to be "The Word of God".

Sadly the rat-sandwich idea does not die easily no matter how illusive the logic that says "believe Lev 19 - but only vs 18 of that chapter".

The slice-and-dice pick and choose approach to scripture was not approved of in Mark 7:1-9

in Christ,

Bob

Notice how Bob will never answer the simple question concerning clothing (not dietary laws; but clothing): [Deut. 22:11]
1. How did the Israelites put into practice this law?
2. How do you follow this law in a practical way in this day and age?

Not once has he given a simple direct answer to this question. Not even one time.

 

[steaver]

The slice-and-dice pick and choose approach to scripture was not approved of in Mark 7:1-9

in Christ,

Bob

Then that makes Ellen White a false prophet.

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

Notice how Bob will never answer the simple question concerning clothing (not dietary laws; but clothing): [Deut. 22:11]
1. How did the Israelites put into practice this law?
2. How do you follow this law in a practical way in this day and age?

Not once has he given a simple direct answer to this question. Not even one time.

Hint - this thread is on Lev 11 - not on Deut 22.

Already did - a few times now

So I gave you a summary of a few of my posts providing the answers - time after time.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1543056&postcount=162

And also my last post stated the answer as well - differentiating between one woven cloth vs layered clothing. It is a pretty simple topic.

What am I missing - where is the difficulty in reading that answer?

what is far worse for your entire line of questioning is that even if I HAD NOT given you those answers (such that now you are without any excuse at all) you STILL were at a dead stop because your rather odd position that is of the form "I dishonor my parents and that is ok - since I know a john williams that covets some days" is NOT a Bible position on anything!

DHK's recent efforts to try and come up with an actual Bible case (from Eph 2:14-15 for example) that represents an actual Bible position (though I think a careful study of the text that I provide here - shows your position to be in error - AT LEAST it is a Bible position rather than simply toying around while making stuff up).



.... Surely there would have been ONE baptist who would stand and be counted and say "hey wait a minute! That is no Bible position at all!".

Notice how DHK will never answer the point on the papal-nature of his argument that is of the form "I dishonor my parents and that is ok - since I know a john williams that covets some days". Papal because those who make such wild claims - are using said "John Williams" as their pope instead of looking for a Bible position.

How sad.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

What we eat does not make us unclean but what is in our hearts. I think that's in there too. Also, I'm a Gentile, not a Jew.

Lev 11 says not to eat rats, cats, dogs, bats and diseased meat - among other things.

there is "no text" in all of scripture where Christ said to start eating rats, cats, dogs and bats and diseased meat. No not even Mark 7.

Turns out - that making diseased meat "fit to eat" was never the goal of the gospel.

Those who seek to reduced the gospel to such trivia - are missing a huge part of scripture on the subject of what the Gospel actually is.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Hint - this thread is on Lev 11 - not on Deut 22.
Already did - a few times now

First, I am sticking to the thread, for it is about keeping the Levitical law. Dietary or Clothing law, both are part of the same law. You can't explain why you religiously adhere to one, and why you "junk" the other, and that even to the extent of blasphemy (definition--having no regard for God and/or his Word; treating Him/His Word as trivial).

Second, in all these pages I have read every post. Not once have you answered the question I have posed to you--not once. Care to try again?

In Deu.22:11:
How did the Israelites keep this Law?
How do you keep this law in a practical way today?

Notice how DHK will never answer the point on the papal-nature of his argument that is of the form "I dishonor my parents and that is ok - since I know a john williams that covets some days". Papal because those who make such wild claims - are using said "John Williams" as their pope instead of looking for a Bible position.

How sad.

in Christ,

Bob

I avoid your rabbit trails Bob. I have asked you this one question right from page 3. You can find it in post #29. I have asked it again and again and again. You refuse to answer. Everyone on this board knows that you refuse to give a simple answer, and you make yourself look very foolish in doing so, as if you have something to hide. What is your problem in answering a simple question?

 

[BobRyan]

I am amazed that you think a thread about Lev 11 - results in Lev 11 "being a rabbit trail".

I am amazed that you think a Bible solution to Lev 11 - instead of the transparently flawed papal "my pope covets so that tells me I can dishonor my parents and get by with it" solution -- is merely "a rabbit trail".

How far the mighty have fallen for what Catholic doctrine for ignoring some text could NOT be well hidden using such methods?

I cannot think of a one.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

First, I am sticking to the thread, for it is about keeping the Levitical law. Dietary or Clothing law, both are part of the same law.

Hence my repeated reference to Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" as well as the Lev 17 prohibition against eating meat with blood in it - animals that were strangled - as is also repeated in Acts 15.

Another "inconvenient detail" you are so happy to ignore.

I am trying to get our baptist friends to raise the level of the discussion above the "toy defense" of the form "my pope is allowed to covet therefore I should be allowed to dishonor my parents if I want to " -- that is not even remotely a Bible position on anything at all!

And of course - I also point out to my upholding the wool not woven with linent statement in Deut 22:11 - but in truth that is a minor point since you have no Bible case at all to make in that regard even if I were not doing that -- which has been my point from page 1.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[billwald]

>First, I am sticking to the thread, for it is about keeping the Levitical law. Dietary or Clothing law, both are part of the same law.

Agree 100%

> You can't explain why you religiously adhere to one, and why you "junk" the other, and that even to the extent of blasphemy (definition--having no regard for God and/or his Word; treating Him/His Word as trivial).

(At least from the 4th century) It has always been standard Christian practice to pick and choose in this way. The only thing changes is choice of favored passages.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Tom B: A few years ago, my wife and I ate with a non-believing Jewish couple. I chose not to eat bacon in front of them because they were Jewish. When it came time for them to order, he ordered a sausage and cheese omelette. I immediately changed my order.:thumbs:

HP: :laugh: That is funny!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bone: If there ever is a time when a brother takes offense to me eating pork I have no problem switching to something else. I will however, try to explain to him why there is no dietary restriction for Christians.

HP: I for one see that as a good attitude. :thumbsup:

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not a wilderness wandering Isrealite to be set aside from all other nations so...pass the ham and bacon sandwiches with a side order of fried Gulf shrimp! Christ himself said I could.:smilewinkgrin:

There is not one statement from Christ mentioning (in context) the idea that rats, cats, dogs, bats (nor even shrimp) are made clean by His blood sacrifice on the cross.

Turns out that God's Word in Lev 11 statements against eating diseased flesh, rats, cats etc is not a "problem" for the Gospel is trying to 'fix'.

When Noah enters the boat - God has him take the clean animals by sevens... and the rats,cats,dogs,bats by twos.

Noah "was not a Jew" as it turns out.

In Isaiah 66 - a prediction is made that at the end of time - when God judges the world by fire - those who eat mice and detestible things will not fare as well as they may have at first imagined if they did those things in the full light of the Word of God.

In 1Cor 6 God says that our bodies are the temple of God - and God is inclined to destroy those who destroy His temple. (Kind of a strong statement for Paul to make - glad I did not say it).

In any case - as Steaver knows - I did not bring this subject up - nor do I think that everyone fully knows what the Word of God says on this subject.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim

HP: What if you were sitting next to a fellow believer that you knew felt differently about it, that might be offended by your liberty? What might Christ instruct us to do in such cases or is nothing said concerning such instances?

I am always hearing about the fellow sitting next to me ... But I have never met one of them who admits to being "the weaker brother". They always think they are being the stronger believer because they refuse to eat or whatever. Where are these weaker brethren who are offended by my meal of pulled pork?

Well I agree that I also don't know anyone offended when someone else eats pig - and when I go to Asia - I do not get offended by someone eating rat or cat or dog. So in order to never risk eating meat "offered to idols" they chose to be vegetarians. Paul writing to the Corinthians said "I will never eat meat again if it causes my brother to stumble" speaking directly to the subject of "vegetables only" and the issue of the weaker brother confused on the subject of idols and meats offered to idols.

I myself choose not to join them in doing so.

But the "weaker brother" subject in 1Cor 8 and Rom 14 has to do with those who "eat vegetables only" because they are gentiles who come from a pagan background believing an idol to be a false god/deity of some type.

(hint - no specification in the OT saying you have to eat "vegetables only" so the wild idea that following the Word of God (the OT) is "weak" is not actually in the text - it is merely eisegeted in by some people who failed to notice the details and the context or do something even close to exegesis of the text when addressing it from the pulpit).

When we go out to eat - I never notice vegetarians or those who follow God's Word in Lev 11 becoming "offended" because someone at the next table prefers to ignore that part of the Word of God.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Paul writing to the Corinthians said "I will never eat meat again if it causes my brother to stumble" speaking directly to the subject of "vegetables only" and the issue of the weaker brother confused on the subject of idols and meats offered to idols.

I myself choose not to join them in doing so.

But the "weaker brother" subject in 1Cor 8 and Rom 14 has to do with those who "eat vegetables only" because they are gentiles who come from a pagan background believing an idol to be a false god/deity of some type.

(hint - no specification in the OT saying you have to eat "vegetables only" so the wild idea that following the Word of God (the OT) is "weak" is not actually in the text - it is merely eisegeted in by some people who failed to notice the details and the context or do something even close to exegesis of the text when addressing it from the pulpit).

When we go out to eat - I never notice vegetarians or those who follow God's Word in Lev 11 becoming "offended" because someone at the next table prefers to ignore that part of the Word of God.

in Christ,

Bob

We like how you love to boast of pointing to the details. You tell us to look at the detail of "meats offered to idols". You tell us all about exegesis and how we just don't pay attention to the details.

And then you abandon details and any form of exegesis as you repeatedly post Is 66 as a scripture that sends swine eaters to hell.

You say look at the detail of meat offered to idols. Why do you totally ignore this "detail" in Is 66? I guess it is one of those "inconvenient details" you like to speak of.

Isa 66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves ...

These are unbelievers. You will not find one scripture that speaks of a believer sanctifying themselves for it is Christ who sanctifies the believer.

...in the gardens behind one [tree] in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

The spoken of in this text are they who offer meats unto false gods believing these meats sanctify themselves. Just as those meats offered unto idols spoken of in Romans 14.



But you ignore this huge detail in Is 66:17. You find it "inconvenient" I suppose. Yet you love to boast of how you pay attention to the details and context of every passage.

Is 66:17 is not about eating swine or the mouse for food. It is about those who are doing so to sanctify themselves.

So you can get off your high horse of how you pay so close attention to the "details" and "context" in all of your applications of scripture. You prove you do not practice what you preach when it becomes inconvenient for your own pov.

:jesus: