-
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!
Do pork-eaters go to hell?!
- Thread starter xdisciplex
- Start date
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
God says "CAN be" not that you must eat them.
Obviously.
And as for the judgment at the end of time???
God allows us to eat beef steak, turkey, lamb, chicken, salmon etc - but not sewer rats. In fact when we study God's Word in Lev 11 we find that He FORBIDs humans from eating rats.
Lev 11
46 This is the law regarding the animal and the bird, and every living thing that moves in the waters and everything that swarms on the earth,
47 to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the edible creature and the creature which is not to be eaten.
Isaiah 66
15 For behold, the LORD will come in fire And His chariots like the whirlwind, To render His anger with fury, And His rebuke with flames of fire.
16 For the LORD will execute judgment by fire And by His sword on all flesh, And those slain by the LORD will be many.
17 ""Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go to the gardens, Following one in the center, Who eat swine's flesh, detestable things and mice[/b], will come to an end altogether,'' declares the LORD.
18 ""For I know their works and their thoughts; the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and see My glory.
He permits some other animals - but stops us when it comes to rats, cats, dogs and bats
That point remains as well. Apparently God stands behind His Word - as being "valid".
"Do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! in fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God" Rom 3:31.
In Christ,
Bob
Obviously.
And as for the judgment at the end of time???
God allows us to eat beef steak, turkey, lamb, chicken, salmon etc - but not sewer rats. In fact when we study God's Word in Lev 11 we find that He FORBIDs humans from eating rats.
Lev 11
46 This is the law regarding the animal and the bird, and every living thing that moves in the waters and everything that swarms on the earth,
47 to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the edible creature and the creature which is not to be eaten.
Isaiah 66
15 For behold, the LORD will come in fire And His chariots like the whirlwind, To render His anger with fury, And His rebuke with flames of fire.
16 For the LORD will execute judgment by fire And by His sword on all flesh, And those slain by the LORD will be many.
17 ""Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go to the gardens, Following one in the center, Who eat swine's flesh, detestable things and mice[/b], will come to an end altogether,'' declares the LORD.
18 ""For I know their works and their thoughts; the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and see My glory.
He permits some other animals - but stops us when it comes to rats, cats, dogs and bats
That point remains as well. Apparently God stands behind His Word - as being "valid".
"Do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! in fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God" Rom 3:31.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan said:
Amen Bob!
BTW, my dad did eat grasshopper legs when he was hungry. He said it had taste like a peanut. But thats ok some people like certain foods... I just prefer grasshoppers on my fishing hook instead of my dinner plate. I figure in the long run I'll still get my grasshooper in me when I go to eat the fish that ate the grasshopper. **Grin** :laugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
music4Him said:
Still you have to be amazed that when God says it should be beefsteak, turkey, chicken, salmon, tuna etc.... others whine about and insist that God is being mean if he does not repeal HIS WORD that forbids the eating of rats, cats, dogs and bats for humans.
How sad.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
As Peter points out in Acts 10 and 11 "I HAVE NEVER eaten ANYTHING that is unclean".
Peter remains faithful to the Word of God EVEN in post-cross NT times and he makes this point in direct communication with God.
What Peter does NOT say is "O no Lord for I have NEVER evangelized GENTILES" - for this is NOT a point of faith and obedience to the Word of God with Peter - it is merely a point of Jewish tradition.
As Paul says in Romans 3:31 "Do we then make VOID the Law of God by our faith? God FORBID! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God!"
We can believe it!
In Christ,
Bob
Peter remains faithful to the Word of God EVEN in post-cross NT times and he makes this point in direct communication with God.
What Peter does NOT say is "O no Lord for I have NEVER evangelized GENTILES" - for this is NOT a point of faith and obedience to the Word of God with Peter - it is merely a point of Jewish tradition.
As Paul says in Romans 3:31 "Do we then make VOID the Law of God by our faith? God FORBID! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God!"
We can believe it!
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Peter states 3 times (in relating the story) that he never eats rats in the entire thing.
No possibility of spinning that away.
Peter NEVER says "O NO Lord for I have NEVER witnessed to Gentiles" AS IF that was a point of faithful obedience! Not even ONCE.
No possibility of obfuscating or spinning out of that fact.
Peter NEVER indicates that ANY INSTRUCTION he had to that point in time suggested that he should be eating sewer rats.
Obviously.
PETER CLAIMS that the POINT of the vision was to "CALL NO MAN unclean" no mention about "Call no RAT unclean".
So when we let the BIBLE provide ITS OWN interpretation we get no spin about "rat sandwiches".
God NEVER says of Peter "you have rebelled against Me now we have a problem" RATHER Peter GOES immediately when God says "Three men are coming - GO with them". The story is one of Peter OBEYING God -- of Peter "CALLING NO MAN UNCLEAN" -- but in the story we see nothing about Peter eating Rats.
And this is where your argument ended.
in Christ,
Bob
No possibility of spinning that away.
Peter NEVER says "O NO Lord for I have NEVER witnessed to Gentiles" AS IF that was a point of faithful obedience! Not even ONCE.
No possibility of obfuscating or spinning out of that fact.
Peter NEVER indicates that ANY INSTRUCTION he had to that point in time suggested that he should be eating sewer rats.
Obviously.
PETER CLAIMS that the POINT of the vision was to "CALL NO MAN unclean" no mention about "Call no RAT unclean".
So when we let the BIBLE provide ITS OWN interpretation we get no spin about "rat sandwiches".
God NEVER says of Peter "you have rebelled against Me now we have a problem" RATHER Peter GOES immediately when God says "Three men are coming - GO with them". The story is one of Peter OBEYING God -- of Peter "CALLING NO MAN UNCLEAN" -- but in the story we see nothing about Peter eating Rats.
And this is where your argument ended.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
My argument is that YOUR premise dies in the story of Abraham BEFORE we ever get to the case of Peter in Acts 10 and 11.
YOU say that God can not ask for something to be done that is in violation of a commandment - I simply point you to the case of Abraham as the perfect proof that your point is not entirely true.
I then point out that Peter DOES NOT respond to God with a "defense for rebellion" against what God is teaching Him by saying "Oh NO Lord for I have NEVER witnessed to gentiles and I will ALWAYS call some of mankind UNCLEAN". Not once does Peter argue that point with God! And in all three explanations PETER gives HE insists that THIS was the point of the vision.
Through all of it Peter is CONSISTENT in saying "I have never eaten anything unclean" -- not ONCE does Peter say "and so now I have started eating rats not just beafsteak and salmon as God's Word says".
In Christ,
Bob
YOU say that God can not ask for something to be done that is in violation of a commandment - I simply point you to the case of Abraham as the perfect proof that your point is not entirely true.
I then point out that Peter DOES NOT respond to God with a "defense for rebellion" against what God is teaching Him by saying "Oh NO Lord for I have NEVER witnessed to gentiles and I will ALWAYS call some of mankind UNCLEAN". Not once does Peter argue that point with God! And in all three explanations PETER gives HE insists that THIS was the point of the vision.
Through all of it Peter is CONSISTENT in saying "I have never eaten anything unclean" -- not ONCE does Peter say "and so now I have started eating rats not just beafsteak and salmon as God's Word says".
In Christ,
Bob
God gives life and God takes life away. God taking life away does not make God a murderer ( did God murder Ananias and Sapphira? No. Did those who obeyed God's command to kill in battles commit murder? No. ) . If Abraham would have killed his son as God had told him to do, and Abraham had every intent to OBEY God's command and do just that, Abraham would not have been guilty of "murder" which is the "thou shalt not" commandment given. Murder carries a selfish, hatefull, full of sin motive, like Cain. God commanding Abraham to kill his son was not tempting Abraham to sin (commit murder) . Therefore pointing to Abraham as refute of my exegesis that referenced James 1:13 is mute. There is no comparasion.
Never said he did, it's pointless!
Again, pointless!
Fact is God told Peter to EAT. Did Peter think God meant eat humans? God would not tell Peter to do something that was sin. Therefore the lesson was two fold, not singular as you insist. One, eat "now" what you please. Two, don't look at Gentiles as unclean EITHER!
Think about how stupid it would be for Peter to go and witness to the Gentiles telling them to believe on Jesus Christ and BTW slaughter all your pigs if you do believe in Him! Peter would tell them that you are now washed clean by the blood of Christ, but if you eat a pig you will be unclean again, Jesus' blood won't cover pig eating you know :tear:
God Bless!
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Everyone agrees that if Abraham had simply gotten up one day and said "hmm today I think I will kill my son" it would be a violation of the Ten Commadnments.
If you are going to argue that doing that in direct response to God's command no longer makes it a sin for Abraham in that one case - then that point stands FOR ALL such cases where God might command.
The point remains sir.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I then point out that Peter DOES NOT respond to God with a "defense for rebellion" against what God is teaching Him by saying "Oh NO Lord for I have NEVER witnessed to gentiles and I will ALWAYS call some of mankind UNCLEAN". Not once does Peter argue that point with God!
The fact that you fail to respond to the point - does not make it pointless sir.
The point is that Peter is NOT arguing with God over a point of faithfulness - In the case of the vision Peter consistently reports that the lesson is "call no MAN unclean" and that he SHOULD go and witness to gentiles EVEN though it is not in harmony with the traditions of the Jewish leaders. NOT ONCE does Peter refuse/resist/deny/reject this key teaching or hold it to be an act of faithfulness to REFUSE to witness.
Rather when it comes to the primary POINT of the vision we ONLY SEE Peter ACCEPTING it. God says "go" and Peter instantly GOES!
So the "eat rats" metaphor and the "not so Lord for I have NEVER eaten anything unclean" is NOT an argument by Peter NOT to witness to Gentiles - but as Peter says it IS an argument by God saying TO WITNESS to Gentiles!!
Those who try to twist this text back around to a scenario of Peter in rebellion against God in not eating rats - are doing severe injustice to the text.
The point remains.
In Christ,
bob
The fact that you fail to respond to the point - does not make it pointless sir.
The point is that Peter is NOT arguing with God over a point of faithfulness - In the case of the vision Peter consistently reports that the lesson is "call no MAN unclean" and that he SHOULD go and witness to gentiles EVEN though it is not in harmony with the traditions of the Jewish leaders. NOT ONCE does Peter refuse/resist/deny/reject this key teaching or hold it to be an act of faithfulness to REFUSE to witness.
Rather when it comes to the primary POINT of the vision we ONLY SEE Peter ACCEPTING it. God says "go" and Peter instantly GOES!
So the "eat rats" metaphor and the "not so Lord for I have NEVER eaten anything unclean" is NOT an argument by Peter NOT to witness to Gentiles - but as Peter says it IS an argument by God saying TO WITNESS to Gentiles!!
Those who try to twist this text back around to a scenario of Peter in rebellion against God in not eating rats - are doing severe injustice to the text.
The point remains.
In Christ,
bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Peter does NOT go to the gentiles with an "eat what you please message" in the text we see that he ONLY goes with the gospel and his interpretation of the vision is stated BY HIM to be "witness to gentiles" and is NEVER stated to be "eat rats".
Pigs are not mentioned in the dream - just rats, cats, dogs and snakes. The idea that Peter would seem stupid if he told the gentiles that they could not eat rats -- is a failed argument from the very start!
in Christ,
Bob
Where does it say pigs were not mentioned in Peter's dream, and dogs were? The text I read said "In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air." (Acts 10:12) Last time I checked, and I am a farmer, all the pigs I ever saw had four feet, just like most dogs, although I have seen a couple of three-legged dogs running around. Tractors with running mowing machines, and dogs are not particularly compatible, when they cross paths. And a rotary "Bush-Hog"? Dog-gone! :laugh: :laugh:BobRyan said:
Ed
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Well it may be that in additon to the rats, cats, dogs and bats -- a pig may have been wandering around as well. Point made sir!
11and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,
12and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.
13A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!"
14But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean."
15Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."
16This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky. 17Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, behold, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon's house, appeared at the gate;
...
28And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.
Of course I just know there are some here who would shout out to Peter "NO Peter he only told you to call no PIG unclean - it was just about PIGS and snakes not about MEN - go back and read the text again PETER" -- but I am not one of them.
In Christ,
Bob
11and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,
12and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.
13A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!"
14But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean."
15Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."
16This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky. 17Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, behold, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon's house, appeared at the gate;
...
28And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.
Of course I just know there are some here who would shout out to Peter "NO Peter he only told you to call no PIG unclean - it was just about PIGS and snakes not about MEN - go back and read the text again PETER" -- but I am not one of them.
In Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator: