Dietary Laws

[David Lamb]

Lol.... it is an expression (not accusing you of sin but saying you are wrong). But I understand your confusion (you are Brittish, perhaps it is an expression foreign to your culture).

But yes.... I suppose me saying you ate wrong is an accusation. You make that accusation against others on a daily basis.

Members accuse other members of being wrong here. In fact, that is often the second post on debate threads.

This is a debate forum. If you cannot handle people saying you are wrong then perhaps you should not post on these forums.

But you did just say that Martin was wrong, but that he was sinfully wrong. You wrote:

"@Martin Marprelate is sinfully wrong"

I cannot see any other way to interpret such words than as an accusation.

 

[Jerome]

Oh brother. And aren't you the one who routinely resorts to 'it must mean something different'?

Anyway, for those who just can't comprehend that words could mean other the strictly literal, here are some dictionaries' extended definitions of "sinfully":

or, "far more than usual or expected"

"2. (informal, often humorous) in a way that is slightly bad"

or, "wrongly: a weakened sense."

or, "unreasonably"

 

[GentleGospeller]

No, they are not still in force. ...

Yes, they are still in force. Acts 15 even quotes from the OT, under inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Would you like to look more closely at those details?

 

[GentleGospeller]

The translation I use almost invariably here is the NKJV.

Sorry to hear that. It has serious corruptions, but that is a differing subject.

This is a discussion forum. I am very happy to discuss the matter with you.

Ok, sounds good. However, this forum has a very limited timing per thread, and I suspect soon that it will receive the closing warning. Would you like to discuss this in a brand new thread, just us? (I will refuse to reply to any others in that thread, and others may do what they always do).

 

[GentleGospeller]

... In short, Dungeness Crab and pulled pork sandwiches are still on the menu..

In short, no, they are still unclean and abomination according to the OT and NT texts.

 

[GentleGospeller]

'Halal' meat has been prayed over by an Imam or other Islamic official before the animal has its throat cut.

Again, "halal" is an Islamic, non-scriptural term, and relates to Muhammadan regulations that have nothing to do with scriptural (Bible) regulations.

Such prayers have zero effect on the meat

Who said they did?

or those who eat it

I do not ordinarily recommend the eating of any flesh in this day (period of time), for numerous scriptural reasons.

though there are legitimate questions over animal welfare standards.

Non-sequitur to the point of the OP.

My understanding is that most New Zealand lamb is halal these days,

So? What Islamic persons allow is not what scripture states are regulations from JEHOVAH Elohiym.

simply because such large quantities of it are exported to Saudi Arabia.

Again, non-sequitur to the point of the OP.

 

[GentleGospeller]

... BUT the actual topic is dietary laws (the Old Covenant) and whether Christians can eat catfish, shrimp, and bacon. ...

Again, you make the incorrect statement that "dietary laws" are merely part of "the Old Covenant", when I have stated that they existed before the Old Covenant, as dietary laws of God are from Genesis, even the beginning.

 

[GentleGospeller]

I have to correct you here

No, there is no need for 'you' [the self of "I"] to correct me here, as I am not the one in error.

(or, more accurately, you need to allow God's words into your heart).

This is an incorrect assumption upon your part. The word of God is already in my heart, which is why I am responding the way I am. My position is not from "I", but from "thy [God's] word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path".

This topic came up in Acts.

Actually no, it did not. The primary context of Acts 15 is not dietary laws specifically, but rather physical circumcision of the gentile believers, and whether the "law of Moses" (not dietary laws) was required to be kept for salvation. Would you like me to show you this from the text itself?

Gentiles were asked to abstain from food sacrificed to idols (they had been involved in idolatry, were saved from that life), abstain from meet stalrangled and eating blood.

Yes, they were, and do you know why? Do you know where the Holy Ghost through the believers is directly quoting from?

Why did Gentiles eat things like pork, shrimp, shellfish?

Because they were outside of the knowledge of God's laws, see

Act_17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Because that was their custom and they were not prohibited from doing do by God.

No. See previous context.

Roasted pork and shellfish was eaten simply because it was a popular food (and their culture).

Again, no. Satan, through many years of deception among the peoples of this world, brought them into violation of God's laws on health, which existed since Genesis, so that their minds and bodies may be subject to him more easily, among other things, such as bringing disease, disaster (suffering) and death.

In fact, Paul comdemned those who taught it was wrong.

No, he did not. Be glad to discuss it with you if you are willing to listen (Pro. 18:13,17).

Paul

Nope.

- not me -

Yes, 'you', not Paul.

went to the covenants not only in explaining why it was wrong to go back to these Old Covenant laws but also in his condemnation of those who do turn back.

Incorrect. Be glad to show you in another thread about covenants, which you seem bound and determined to change the topic to.

Do you know of any passage not in the Old Covenant that prohibits eating pork, shrimp, catfish, oysters, clams, etc?

Why would you exclude the OT texts? That in itself is dangerous. There are also NT text citing the OT texts, so your example (of exclusion of the OT texts) is highly mistaken, and not a Bible believing example to be followed. There are also NT texts speaking of the unclean and abomination as well. The NT is founded upon the OT texts. Your reasoning would exclude so much.

That is rhetorical as you do not (none exists). "Your truth" does not trump truth.

You are mistaken. There is. Truth is defined by scripture (not me): Deu. 32:4; Psa. 25:10, 119:142,151; Jhn. 14:6, 17:17; 1 Jhn. 5:6. I would like to discuss with you about the dietary laws, but please drop the arrogance.

 

[GentleGospeller]

Yes, that is exactly what covenants are. And the Old Covenant was an agreement between God and Israel during a specific time.

No Christian would insist it is wrong to eat pork because that would be to rejevt God's words. BUT some may say it is wrong for them because of their conscious.

This was one issue in the Apostalic Church. Jewdisers (early heretics) were denounced by Paul for trying to place others under the Old Covenant.

AND some Christians were tempted to return to the Old Covenant (Paul explained if they do they have no hope, that choosing part of the Law -whether dietary or ceremonial - is to put ones self under the whole law and to reject Christ (the New Covenant).

Again, you are not properly defining, or identifying, what either of the Two Covenants are. You are simply inserting 'you-ism' into them. I want scripture, not 'you'. I know where both are mentioned in scripture, and what they are, and with whom they are made, and what is contained in them.

This subject has nothing to do with Judaisers. As stated, the dietary laws were before Moses' time.

You are also making the continuous mistake in thinking (and saying) that I am asking anyone to return to the 'old covenant', when I have neither thought, nor said, nor implied such a thing, and in fact am very much against such a thing.

This is why I stated that it is better to focus on the dietary laws, rather than covenants, because the two things are differing things.

 

[GentleGospeller]

... But cults have been developed

Sure, no question, but also non-sequitur to the OP.

, like SDA,

Sorry you think that. Not even Walter Martin said that. Also, non-sequitur to the OP.

who again seek to reject Christ for the Old Covenant.

That is a strawman of the "SDA" (sic). I know better.

I think this may be in part to a contemporary appreciation of Judiasm.

"SDA" theological positions are not based in "contemporary appreciation of Judaism", since modern 'Judaism' is nothing like scriptural Judaism, but is instead Rabbinic Talmudic Kabbalism. If a person desires to know what an "SDA" (sic) believes, I recommend that they read firsthand source materials, not 'you' and 'your' personal opinion of them.

@GentleGospeller ,

Please, as a favour, and I ask in charity (1 Cor. 13), do not ping me, as it is unnecessary, since I read the responses, and am unafraid to consider a position, and compare such to scripture (Isa. 8:20).

for example, was unaware

Please, cease from the arrogance in presuming to know what I do and do not know, or am aware or not aware of. As stated, I am fully aware that scripture does not teach your personal position. I have been attempting to get you to engage, as I do not intend to make you do anything you do not desire to do, but you seem bent on being a teacher, but I have not seen in your responses that you have any such gift, when I know that I do have the gift of such from the Holy Ghost Himself, and may be witnessed in the many years of service in writing, preaching, teaching, evangelizing, ministering, &c., so it is not merely myself that says so, as many will testify to the gift in me, but the real proof is demonstrated by the Holy Ghost Himself in all those years.

 

[JonC]

Sure, no question, but also non-sequitur to the OP.


Sorry you think that. Not even Walter Martin said that. Also, non-sequitur to the OP.


That is a strawman of the "SDA" (sic). I know better.


"SDA" theological positions are not based in "contemporary appreciation of Judaism", since modern 'Judaism' is nothing like scriptural Judaism, but is instead Rabbinic Talmudic Kabbalism. If a person desires to know what an "SDA" (sic) believes, I recommend that they read firsthand source materials, not 'you' and 'your' personal opinion of them.


Please, as a favour, and I ask in charity (1 Cor. 13), do not ping me, as it is unnecessary, since I read the responses, and am unafraid to consider a position, and compare such to scripture (Isa. 8:20).


Please, cease from the arrogance in presuming to know what I do and do not know, or am aware or not aware of. As stated, I am fully aware that scripture does not teach your personal position. I have been attempting to get you to engage, as I do not intend to make you do anything you do not desire to do, but you seem bent on being a teacher, but I have not seen in your responses that you have any such gift, when I know that I do have the gift of such from the Holy Ghost Himself, and may be witnessed in the many years of service in writing, preaching, teaching, evangelizing, ministering, &c., so it is not merely myself that says so, as many will testify to the gift in me, but the real proof is demonstrated by the Holy Ghost Himself in all those years.

You are ignoring Scripture. No passage in the Bible says it is wrong to eat shrimp except the Old Covenant.

God did not say we cannot eat bacon. You say it, but who are you compared to God??

Here is one dish Paul would have spoken about (saying it is fine for Christians with a "strong faith" to eat but to watch out lest the believers with a "strong faith" and "knowledge" of Christian freedom become a stumbling block for those of a "weak faith"):

Pork collar, red wine, raisin wine, olive oil, and spices.

This was a dish served at Saturnalia (a time in December dedicated to the worship of Saturn). The dish was dedicated to Saturn, a portion offered to the "god".

Paul was specifically addressing it was fine for Christians to eat unless they were of the "weaker faith" (they would not view the dish as mere food but see it as participating in worshipping a different god).

Paul did not address eating the dish (apart from it being sacrificed to idols) in 1 Corinthians 8-10 because Christians not being held to the dietary laws had already been addressed.


I know there may be Christian cults who hold some SDA views but are actually Christian. It is the influence I am speaking of (they make the same error as SDA, but not necessarily by becoming a non-Christian cult).

 

[JonC]

But you did just say that Martin was wrong, but that he was sinfully wrong. You wrote:

"@Martin Marprelate is sinfully wrong"

I cannot see any other way to interpret such words than as an accusation.

Um.... yes. That was the phrase I used.

I also say "dry as a bone". I get you would think that's make me a liar if the bone you have in mind is not dry, or dryer, than the weather.

I say "raining buckets". I do not mean buckets are falling from the sky or that each rain drop amounts to a bucket of water.

I use the term "balls to the wall" to mean maximum effort with no restraint. I do not mean we are pilots pushing the ball of the throttle to the firewall.

I say "sinfully wrong", "as wrong as sin on Sunday", "guilty as sin", not meaning one is sinning but that they are very wrong.


The thing about idioms is when you run across one you have not heard it is fine to ask. BUT once you have been told it is an idiom you do not have the right to declare the one using it means it literally.


To educate you on this issue :

"Guilty as sin", "sinfully wrong", "Hell in a bucket", "as wrong as sin on Sunday", "raining cats and dogs", "balls to the wall", etc. are phrases or expressions that carries a figurative or non-literal meaning.


If I say "it's raining cats and dogs" don't run to the windows expecting to see your yard overrun by cats and dogs. I mean it is raining hard (by "hard" I do not mean "dificult", but that there is a lot of rain).

 

[JonC]

Again, you are not properly defining, or identifying, what either of the Two Covenants are. You are simply inserting 'you-ism' into them. I want scripture, not 'you'. I know where both are mentioned in scripture, and what they are, and with whom they are made, and what is contained in them.

This subject has nothing to do with Judaisers. As stated, the dietary laws were before Moses' time.

You are also making the continuous mistake in thinking (and saying) that I am asking anyone to return to the 'old covenant', when I have neither thought, nor said, nor implied such a thing, and in fact am very much against such a thing.

This is why I stated that it is better to focus on the dietary laws, rather than covenants, because the two things are differing things.

The Old Covenant is the covenant given by God through Moses (also called "the Law" or "the Law of Moses" although it was given through Moses by God).

This is the covenant that contained dietary laws.

By the New Covenant I mean the new and better covensnt established through Christ's blood which included fulfilling and "canceling" the Old Covenant.

There is also the "Covenant of the Promise" (using Paul's language) which was between God, Abraham and Christ - Christ being the Seed (singular).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Oh brother. And aren't you the one who routinely resorts to 'it must mean something different'?

Anyway, for those who just can't comprehend that words could mean other the strictly literal, here are some dictionaries' extended definitions of "sinfully":

or, "far more than usual or expected"

"2. (informal, often humorous) in a way that is slightly bad"

or, "wrongly: a weakened sense."

or, "unreasonably"

From the Concise Oxford English Dictionary. sinful a. (of person) full of sin, wicked; (of act) involving or characterized by sin; highly represhensible; hence --LY adv.
Matthew 12:36-37. "But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Sorry to hear that. It has serious corruptions, but that is a differing subject.

I think the NKJV is the best translation to be found today, but if you prefer the ESV:
Mark 7:18-19 (ESV, 2011). 'And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot harm him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean). And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him."'

Ok, sounds good. However, this forum has a very limited timing per thread, and I suspect soon that it will receive the closing warning. Would you like to discuss this in a brand new thread, just us? (I will refuse to reply to any others in that thread, and others may do what they always do).

That is entirely up to you.

 

[Mike B]

In short, no, they are still unclean and abomination according to the OT and NT texts.

Here, Judas and Silas are reading the letter to the Church at Antioch.

Acts 15:29-31

29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from
fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

30 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Prove me wrong, in clear, understandable Scripture.

God is not the author of confusion, and it doesn't get much plainer than this.

 

[JonC]

From the Concise Oxford English Dictionary. sinful a. (of person) full of sin, wicked; (of act) involving or characterized by sin; highly represhensible; hence --LY adv.
Matthew 12:36-37. "But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

Yet we know that is not the complete range.

When we say a cheesecake is "sinfully delicious" are we saying it is wicked?

No, of course not.

You were confused over my use because you were ignorant that "sinful" can have other meanings. That is fine. Everyone is ignorant of some things and yours is language.

BUT when I clarified that I was using "sinful" as an idiom you should have looked up "sinful" in that context to educate yourself before posting.

IF you had you would find that "sinful" is used idiomatically to mean indulgent, appealing, and excessive.

In "sinfuly wrong" the "sinfully" means "excessively".

Words have meanings, but words also have uses beyond their literal meaning.

Were I to say "It is raining cats and dogs" you would call me a liar because it is raining water, not animals. But the reason os you do not understand languages. This, impart, is your difficulty with Scripture.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

The bottom line is the Old Covenant dietary laws do not apply to us. Full stop. Period.

I am sure @kyredneck , being from KY, eats catfish and pork BBQ (if not he is no Southerner!!!). He is not sinning against God by doing so. I also like catfish, bacon, pork shoulder, shrimp, clams, and oysters (although I sometimes worry about oysters). I am not prohibited from eating those things.

You can try to place these dietary restrictions on Christians all you want. Jews did during Paul's time, so it is nothing new.

But you are sinfully wrong in doing so. If you prefer, you are as wrong as sin on Sunday. Pick your idiom.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

When we say a cheesecake is "sinfully delicious" are we saying it is wicked?

Ah! Now I understand the situation! You think you are moderating a cake-making forum and not a theology forum. Or perhaps you are also moderator of a cake-making forum as well as this one, and you temporarily forgot with one you were on. I certainly hope you run the cake forum better than you run this one.
The thing you may not realise is that, in theology, the words 'sin,' 'sinful' and sinfully' have a certain meaning that they may not have in the world of cakes. That may be the reason why, in the 20-odd years I have been on this forum, I have never come across 'sinfully' being used to mean 'very' or 'somewhat' or whatever meaning you were trying to convey.

That is also the reason why I have never seen anyone write on this forum, "@JonC is wicked." Had they done so, no doubt they would have meant that you were super-cool, groovy and a little bit fab. But because this is a theology forum they would have understood that they were not on a teenage fanzine forum, and that the term might be misunderstood.

Suppose you and I were to dine together (granted, Hell would have frozen over)

You are (as usual) quite wrong. It would be very beneficial for us to dine together, especially if you are paying. We have never met, and if we did we might understand each other better.

I will always defend you where appropriate. Someone might write on the forum that you are not fit to live in a pigsty, but I would disagree.
"Oh yes he is!" I would say.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate

The bottom line is the Old Covenant dietary laws do not apply to us. Full stop. Period.

I am sure @kyredneck , being from KY, eats catfish and pork BBQ (if not he is no Sounevertherner!!!). He is not sinning against God by doing so. I also like catfish, bacon, pork shoulder, shrimp, clams, and oysters (although I sometimes worry about oysters). I am not prohibited from eating those things.

You can try to place these dietary restrictions on Christians all you want. Jews did during Paul's time, so it is nothing new.

But you are sinfully wrong in doing so. If you prefer, you are as wrong as sin on Sunday. Pick your idiom.

This is proof positive that you do not read my (anyones?) posts before replying. Or if you do, your low reading age means that you do not understand them properly. Or did you think that @GentleGospeller is my alter ego?
I firmly believe with Paul that Christians are not under any dietary restrictions and have never suggested that they are.
What I do believe with Paul (Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 10) is that Christians should exercise restraint when dining with those of tender consciences, so when you are buying me this slap-up meal, if there's anything that would upset you if I chose it, just let me know.