• 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!

Is Eating Pork Wrong?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
BobRyan said:
I continually address this point - and you continually ignore it.

I keep saying that I could simply IGNORE Lev 19:18 OR Lev 19:19 and it would "PROVE NOTHING" from a doctrinal point of view. My practice is not "doctrinal proof" of something.

You keep arguing that my practice WOULD PROVE some doctrinal position on what is or is not to be kept in scripture.

I keep challenging you on that point - and you simply ignore it -- declaring that it is "PROOF" that we do not need to keep some part of the OT.

How can my PRACTICE be valid PROOF either FOR or against any doctrine???
You're not addressing the point, but deliberately deflecting the question asked to you. You do not keep Lev.23, because you believe NT scriptures tell us we don't have to keep them, but you seem to argue that "everything not deleted is repeated", yet if you're not keeping your linens separate, then you must believe that more than just sacrifices have ended.

EVEN NT authors argue that ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiriation from God - AND IS profitable for doctrine, correction, instruction and reproof. YOU argue "YES but if I ever catch you failing to submit to any point in all of scripture then you can never hold up scripture to Christians as something to be kept, honored and obeyed".

Are you sure you are totally comfortable with that as a doctrinal position against upholding the Word of God -- ALL the Word of God????

Is sinless perfection the prerequisite for every bible teacher, pastor, evangelist, parent, Christian neighbor???

In Christ,

Bob
Lev.23 is scripture, and was given by inspiration by God, but we all believe it is no longer commanded to us. But that does not make it cease being inspired scripture. I wouldn't even call it "ignoring" it; it is in their to teach us the history of God's dealing with Israel, but not for us to observe after Christ's sacrifice.

Now what you are saying sounds like "no, I don't keep my linens separate, but never mind what I do; that's no excuse for you not to keep the rest of the Law". That's true; it would be no excuse IF either v.19:19 or ch.11 were still in effect, but we're trying to prove here whether they are still binding or not, and what you have done is simply pick and choose which you think are still in effect (based on other OT passages like Is.66, which has been shown not to involve us today)...
So if the argument is "WHICH do we keep and on what basis" I have given it - time after time after time.

In answer to Lev 19:18 - I have no text of scripture justifying someone who seeks to ignore it.

In answer to Lev 19:19 - I have no text of scripture justifying someone who seeks to ignore it.
...So for the sake of consistency, you know you have no basis to say that 19:19 is no longer binding, yet you apparently do not keep it, and thus caught with your hands in the jar, you have to deflect your way out of it. Thus, again, why are you telling me to keep all the Laws in Leviticus, what you do not? (Sort of like Paul asking Peter why he commands Christians to "live as Jews" when he is not. It's not about what I see you breaking, but about what you "ignore" and command others to do)
I have given my answer on Civil laws - they only apply while the Theocracy - the government enforcing those civil laws - exists.

I have given you my answer on MORAL LAWS - such as the ten commandments that define what sin is -- they STILL exist!

I have given you my answer on ceremonial laws - such as the ANNUAL Sabbaths of Lev 23 based on animal sacrifices. When God states in Heb 10 that He has ended those sacrifices then the laws based upon them are completed.

I have given you my answre on the HEALTH laws of Lev (for example) where decaying flesh, humans, rats ,cats bats ets are forbidden as food for humans. I point out that christ did not die on the cross to alter the biology of rats making them FOOD for humans NOR to allow humans to eat human flesh. It is ALL not fit for food JUST as our Creator stated in Lev 11.

You have never shown such categories in the NT. What scriptures say "such and such commandments were CIVIL ONLY and ended when the nation ended"? (This is like an argument that other person who showed up here last year insisted, yet without a shred of scripture to support it). No scriptures even make the Ten Commandments ALL "MORAL". The last six are moral, because "moral" means dealing with our fellow man. The first three are spiritual, dealing with God. The fourth is a combination of spiritual and civil, because it is for God, but it also governs the nation's trade.

Only the Ceremonial laws you are forced to acknowledge have cesed, because we have two NT scriptures dirctly saying they ended, leaving no way to get around that. Hoiwever, Colossians and other passages tell us that the rest of the Law of Moses has ended as well. What continues is universal moral laws, some of which were the same as the Ten Commandments, and hence repeated.
 

Claudia_T

New Member
I think the idea of just plain having COMMON SENSE is being lost in all of this.

You know, in the Old Testament it says not to commit INCEST. Well should we conclude its ok to do that NOW?

Of course not, and if science shows us that certain foods are just not the best thing in the world to eat NOW then we ought to have enough sense to stay away from it and eat things that are healthy for us.

You think? :) after all, that IS why God gave us the ability to think.

Deut:6:24: And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day.


I think basically its this horrid idea that some have of God, that He just arbitrarily invents rules for the heck of it that causes lots of these misunderstandings. If God says dont do something, its for our good.

I remember when I first became a Christian and in our neighborhood out in the country there was this goat roaming around. I remembered seeing this herd of goats at someone's house down the road and thought of going to tell these people about this stray goat to see if it was theirs. But I was too lazy. Then that afternoon I "accidentally" ran across a verse in the Old Testament that said something about that if we see our neighbor's animal going astray we should tell them about it, and so I did... and God blessed me for doing that. It turned out it was indeed their goat.

Should I of just ignored that verse since it was in the Old Testament? Well of course not, if a principle of the Bible is still applicable today then we ought to try to do what it says. Because things that harmed people in the old Testament times would still harm them today. Some principles never change. Just like not committing Incest.

If we know eating pork is harmful well why eat the stuff then?


Claudia
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Bob asks
You have just GOT to ask yourself "why in the world did we flee some text in the NT that might actually say EAT RATS and latch on to the seeds debate" -- and there I would say "good question - why did you do it"?!!

Eric responds -

Nobody's saying any of that stuff. Nobody wants to eat humans, cats, dogs and bats.

You grossly underestimate the power of the sinful nature to be inclined to do exactly that which God forbids in Lev 11 as DHK points out.



No, eat rats and other unclean animals (pork) to show that you are not restricted to a kosher diet...[/quote]


http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=912165&postcount=207


DHK said –
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=911345&postcount=185

There are cultures that eat both cats and dogs. They also consider them as delicacies, as the French would, frog's legs, and the Russians, fish eggs--caviar. Right now plenty of people eat insects of all kinds.

Just because certain animals don't appeal to you, doesn't mean they don't appeal to others and that others don't eat them. That is illogical, and called a sweeping generalization--an illogical fallacy. You are arguing from your emotions instead of from truth.

The truth is that
God has made all creatures good and nothing to be refused: whether or not they be pigs, cats or dogs. All of them are good to eat. I have been on survival trips and have had to eat what was available. We snared rabbits. We would have no trouble shooting a coyote which is not that much different than dog meat.

Man does what he has to do in order to survive. There has been many a prisoner who has eaten rats to stay alive. Eskimos thrive on raw caribou. So it doesn't appeal to the niceties of your comfortable western diet.


In this example not only does DHK admit to all the various prohibited animals of Lev 11 HE ALSO admits to the violation of Acts 15 rule on not eating animal blood.

Your "we don't need God's Word telling us not to do this stuff" idea for Lev 11 falls flat.

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
You have never shown such categories in the NT. What scriptures say "such and such commandments were CIVIL ONLY and ended when the nation ended"? (This is like an argument that other person who showed up here last year insisted, yet without a shred of scripture to support it). No scriptures even make the Ten Commandments ALL "MORAL". The last six are moral, because "moral" means dealing with our fellow man. The first three are spiritual, dealing with God. The fourth is a combination of spiritual and civil, because it is for God, but it also governs the nation's trade.

#1. Adventists keep Sabbath without governing the nation's trade.

#2. The 7th day made Holy "FOR MAnkind" IN Gen 2:3 did not govern "a nation's trade".

#3. The MORAL law is that which DEFINES SIN according to 1John 3:4 and Romans 4 and Romans 7 you can not simply "redifine it" as you please.

#4. Your own list shows that even you recognize the division of Law

#5. Civil laws like the fines for punishing Sabbath breakers only work under a Theocracy - the RCC tried them in the dark ages and they were corrupt because the traditions-of-man held sway. The only thing that corrects that is a Theocracy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
You do not keep Lev.23, because you believe NT scriptures tell us we don't have to keep them, but you seem to argue that "everything not deleted is repeated", yet if you're not keeping your linens separate, then you must believe that more than just sacrifices have ended.

I believe "Scripture CAN NOT BE BROKEN" as Christ said.

instead of ASSUMING that "any scripture not repeated is deleted" as you do when it pleases you.

Surely you can see the difference there.

As for your rabbit trail with "keeping your linens seperated" that is your own derailing point - and as I keep pointing out it does nothing to withstand the force of scripture or to hold a Biblical PROOF.

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
In answer to Lev 19:18 - I have no text of scripture justifying someone who seeks to ignore it. "Love your Neighbor as yourself"

In answer to Lev 19:19 - I have no text of scripture justifying someone who seeks to ignore it.

Eric said
...So for the sake of consistency, you know you have no basis to say that 19:19 is no longer binding

Well you got that part right at least.

But in all of that you still have no biblical argument for your "pick and choose" approach to scripture.

I am simply pointing that out...

ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND IS profitable for DOCTRINE correction instruction and reproof.

Hard as it may be to believe.

In Christ,

Bob
 

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
The Bible says you are unclean if you touch a human corpse OR a CLEAN animal corpse. The Bible states that both clean and unclean animals are a health hazard if they are decaying.
All of this does not prove "clean and unclean" are about "health hazards". Again, why isn't poison plants included? God can create a spoiritual category called "ceremonially religiously unclean", and expand it to include things that are "unhealthy". Yet that does not mean that everything that is "unclean" is "unhealthy". You can pick up a dead body and be declared "unclean until the evening", without picking up any disease fro it. It is a SPIRITUAL concept, dealing with ASSOCIATIONS. Death and rot, and the behaviors of live scavenger/predator/pest animals is ASSOCIATED with SIN, and therefore declared "unclean". That's what it's all about. Again, use the Bible's definition of טמא not your own assumed idea.

And this raises anpther question for you. Whenever you clean up a dead bug, mouse, pet or anu other animal, do you remain "unclean until the evening"? If not, then right there, you are not completely keeping the law of clean and unclean!

Lev 11.

Also according to the rule of Lev 11 certain creatures are not fit for food -- and by the rules it states - that includes human flesh. This is obvious to the reader since the rule for land animals is "Divided hoof and chews the cud". There is no escaping the fact that humans "obviously" do not fet into that group.

One may choose to ignore it saying "well I would not do that anyway no matter what God says - so I have a higher authority here -- ME"

But in the case of Israel they DID resort to eating human flesh when food was scarce -- so the idea that "ME" is a better and higher authority than God on this -- is false.
Again, is the Bible classifying man as an animal ("beast")? If we had split hooves, would we be "clean" (free of sin) despite Adam's fall?
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
You can not justify turning a blind eye to Lev 11 "because God did not include poison plants".

That "too" is not a form of biblical argument - "at all".

You can not ignore the fact that the rule of Lev 11 proves that humans are not food for humans.

These are all just facts that do not go away because you find them to be inconvenient.

The bottom line is that Lev 11 says that decaying flesh ANd rats and cats and bats and even humans - are "not food for us". Better to focus on beef steak, deer, chicken, salmon etc then to constantly defend the rat, cat, dog, bat diet as "needed for Christians".

In Christ,

Bob
 

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
You grossly underestimate the power of the sinful nature to be inclined to do exactly that which God forbids in Lev 11 as DHK points out.


DHK said

No, eat rats and other unclean animals (pork) to show that you are not restricted to a kosher diet...


http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=912165&postcount=207

In this example not only does DHK admit to all the various prohibited animals of Lev 11 HE ALSO admits to the violation of Acts 15 rule on not eating animal blood.

Your "we don't need God's Word telling us not to do this stuff" idea for Lev 11 falls flat.
What he was saying was that it is not sin anymore, because that law is not still in effect. Now some of that stuff may seem "gross" to eat (which is the basis of your emotive appeal by using "rats, cats dogs and bats, which MOST do not eaty), but it is no longer a violation of the Law, because we are int he NT, not the OT, or even the OT vision of the Millennium.
#1. Adventists keep Sabbath without governing the nation's trade.

#2. The 7th day made Holy "FOR MAnkind" IN Gen 2:3 did not govern "a nation's trade".

#3. The MORAL law is that which DEFINES SIN according to 1John 3:4 and Romans 4 and Romans 7 you can not simply "redifine it" as you please.

#4. Your own list shows that even you recognize the division of Law

#5. Civil laws like the fines for punishing Sabbath breakers only work under a Theocracy - the RCC tried them in the dark ages and they were corrupt because the traditions-of-man held sway. The only thing that corrects that is a Theocracy.
1, 5. You've picked the laws out of their context of the theocracy of Israel and tried to reapply them to the Church age. That is why your veiw is way off and inconsistent.
2.The sabbath is not even seen as ever being commanded until well after the nation of Israel was founded (Ex.16)
3. These scriptures do not elaborate your concept of "the Moral Law". The sabbath is not mentioned, and neither are the dietary laws. Just because you see some commandments that are "moral" there, doesn't mean they all are.
4. Of course I recognize the division of the Law. It is just not the same as the one you have fabricated from pure assumption.
I believe "Scripture CAN NOT BE BROKEN" as Christ said.

instead of ASSUMING that "any scripture not repeated is deleted" as you do when it pleases you.

Surely you can see the difference there.

As for your rabbit trail with "keeping your linens seperated" that is your own derailing point - and as I keep pointing out it does nothing to withstand the force of scripture or to hold a Biblical PROOF.
No, it is YOUR derailing point. First, you fudged and beat around the issue, and wouldn'tanswer the simple yes or no question of whether you keep it or not. Then, you eventually say you do believe in keeping seeds separate, but still ignored the part about the linens. Now, you keep saying, in a still indirect, fuding fashion, basically, "so what if I don't? That's no excuse for you". Again, it is not about me. Why are YOU preaching "the whole Law" to others when YOU do not keep all of it? The scripture IS "broken", by you, then! To me, it is much easier to just confess that these are not moral and spiritual laws (like the ones mentioned in the NT), and thus do not continue for us. But then you lose your whole moral platform of being a more obedient Christian than everyone else. So you are doing everything in your power to avoid this conclusion, even when you cannot in good conscience testify to keeping this command.
In answer to Lev 19:18 - I have no text of scripture justifying someone who seeks to ignore it. "Love your Neighbor as yourself"

In answer to Lev 19:19 - I have no text of scripture justifying someone who seeks to ignore it.

Quote:
Eric said
...So for the sake of consistency, you know you have no basis to say that 19:19 is no longer binding

Well you got that part right at least.

But in all of that you still have no biblical argument for your "pick and choose" approach to scripture.

I am simply pointing that out...

ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND IS profitable for DOCTRINE correction instruction and reproof.

Hard as it may be to believe.
No, by YOUR own words here, YOU have "picked and chosen". And you try to cover it up and deflect the questions, but you are still exposed. Now you think your picking and choosing is no excuse for me, but I'm not using your picking and choosing as the model for my practice. I belive all of these laws are abolished at the Cross, and only the universal moral and spiritual ones continue. I'm just showing you that you are preaching "the whole law", which you interpret as "all scripture" to me, when you yourself do not keep it. That right there shows that you are the one "desiring to be teachers of the Law, but neither understanding what you teach" Paul speaks of in Timothy.
 

Claudia_T

New Member
It doesnt take a Rocket Scientist to figure out that God made Buzzards and Swine as scavengers to eat garbage and decaying flesh and so we as humans shouldnt turn around and eat the Buzzards and the Swine.

Now when it comes to things like not eating leavened bread, the leavening being symbolic of sin, then its pretty obvious thats the meaning of it... just symbolic.

But God had rules in the Old Testament about cleaning up garbage, sanitation... common sense tells us these basic rules would still apply.

Just like not killing your neighbor and refraining from worshipping idols would still be good ideas to go by today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
I think the idea of just plain having COMMON SENSE is being lost in all of this.

You know, in the Old Testament it says not to commit INCEST. Well should we conclude its ok to do that NOW?


I remember when I first became a Christian and in our neighborhood out in the country there was this goat roaming around. I remembered seeing this herd of goats at someone's house down the road and thought of going to tell these people about this stray goat to see if it was theirs. But I was too lazy. Then that afternoon I "accidentally" ran across a verse in the Old Testament that said something about that if we see our neighbor's animal going astray we should tell them about it, and so I did... and God blessed me for doing that. It turned out it was indeed their goat.

Should I of just ignored that verse since it was in the Old Testament? Well of course not, if a principle of the Bible is still applicable today then we ought to try to do what it says. Because things that harmed people in the old Testament times would still harm them today. Some principles never change. Just like not committing Incest.
Those are UNIVERSAL principle, which obviously continue. That is why the WHOLE LAW is SUMMED UP in "Love the Lord your God", and "Love your neighbor as yourself". Both of those examples fall into the latter category. IT is further summed up in the ONE commandment "Do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself". All of this other stuff we debate about is not universally apart of that. It was all ultimately ceremonial (even if indirectly), and involved spiritual reminders to a carnal nation. All of these laws about "separating things (meats, plants, linens) were teaching them to avoid man's uncleannes (sin). Hence Peter's vision, regarding "Cleaned" GENTILES. We now have the Holy Spirit to teach us that.
I think basically its this horrid idea that some have of God, that He just arbitrarily invents rules for the heck of it that causes lots of these misunderstandings. If God says don't do something, its for our good.
But it wasn't arbitrary or just for the heck of it. It was for a spiritual purpose, apart of His plan, and now He has moved on to the next part of His plan.
Of course not, and if science shows us that certain foods are just not the best thing in the world to eat NOW then we ought to have enough sense to stay away from it and eat things that are healthy for us.

You think? :) after all, that IS why God gave us the ability to think.

Deut:6:24: And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day.

If we know eating pork is harmful well why eat the stuff then?

That is a very weak argument that destroys itself. IF "health" was all it was about, then since they know how to cook pork better, it would be argued that that law is outdated (and this is the argument atheists use against the Bible!). Meanwhile, poultry and sometimes even beef have been said to be worse than pork now. So is "clean" and "unclean", completely reversed? There are a lot of things that "are not best to eat". How about Sugar? I know SDA's caution against too much, like most other health cautious organizations do. But it is not "unclean". No, that had a totally different, SPIRITUAL (Rom.7:14) meaning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Claudia_T

New Member
cautiouarganizations? :)


thats why I believe in being a Vegetarian. You just kinda gotta have some common sense sometimes.
 

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
BobRyan said:
You can not justify turning a blind eye to Lev 11 "because God did not include poison plants".

That "too" is not a form of biblical argument - "at all".
You;re the one trying to argue that "unclean"="unHEALTHy". If that were so, it should be in there. Otherwise, "unclean" is a category that sometimes includes thins that may not be healthy, but it is not synonymous.

You can not ignore the fact that the rule of Lev 11 proves that humans are not food for humans.
The bottom line is that Lev 11 says that decaying flesh ANd rats and cats and bats and even humans - are "not food for us". Better to focus on beef steak, deer, chicken, salmon etc then to constantly defend the rat, cat, dog, bat diet as "needed for Christians".
Again, answer the question. Is man one of those "beasts"? Is man ever considered an "animal" in scripture?

These are all just facts that do not go away because you find them to be inconvenient.
I don't eat pork rats, cats, bats, dogs or humans, so it is not incovenient for me at all. It is convenient for you to ignore that, and think I am justifying my own diet of those things, though.
 

Claudia_T

New Member
anyone have any ideas as to why Daniel ate the pulse (Vegetarian) diet?

and it turns out he and his friends were 10 times better off all the way around?
 

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
It doesnt take a Rocket Scientist to figure out that God made Buzzards and Swine as scavengers to eat garbage and decaying flesh and so we as humans shouldnt turn around and eat the Buzzards and the Swine.
Now when it comes to things like not eating leavened bread, the leavening being symbolic of sin, then its pretty obvious thats the meaning of it... just symbolic.
And the scavengers also symbolized "sin", so that was the spiritual meaning of those laws.
"scavengers" applies only to land animals and birds, but with fish; many fish that have the fins and scales do eat other fish, and scavenge the bottom of the sea (flounder, etc). So do "clean" insects, like the grasshopper family.

So right there, that is not consistent, and destroys the whole argument.
But God had rules in the Old Testament about cleaning up garbage, sanitation... common sense tells us these basic rules would still apply.
Just like not killing your neighbor and refraining from worshipping idols would still be good ideas to go by today.
Those are universal as well.
cautiouarganizations? :)

thats why I believe in being a Vegetarian. You just kinda gotta have some common sense sometimes.
[fixed]
In a rush, and mistyping these things. You should imagine how hard it is to keep up with the both of you.
anyone have any ideas as to why Daniel ate the pulse (Vegetarian) diet?

and it turns out he and his friends were 10 times better off all the way around?
OK, now you're talking vegetarianism again, but if that is a "good healthy principle", like you are arguing the clean and unclean meats are, then God would have declared all meats unclean. We see that originally, man ate only vegetables, but if God has not reinstituted that, and the NT still allows us to eat meat, yet it is not as "healthy" as a vegetarian diet, then the Bible is not giving us "health laws".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Claudia_T

New Member
God allowed polygamy but it wasnt the best way to go

the original diet was a Vegetarian one. Genesis 1:29


God gave Adam and Eve the food He designed that the human race should eat. It was contrary to His plan to have the life of any creature taken. There was no death in Eden. God gave man no permission to eat animal food until after the flood. After the flood, everything had been destroyed upon which man eat, and therefore the Lord in their necessity gave Noah permission to eat of the clean animals which he had taken with him into the ark. But this doesnt mean that animal food was the most healthful article of food for man to have.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse: for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them.” Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “he who practices them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us – for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” Gal 2:10-13

What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. Gal 3:17-19

It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. Gal 5:1-4

All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. 1 Cor 6: 12


Pork isn’t my favorite, but I love clams, lobster and shrimp. Guess that’d kick me out of the kosher diet.
 

Claudia_T

New Member
You misunderstand. I dont think anyone here is seeking to be justified by the law... except in this context:



Jms:2:21: Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Jms:2:24: Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.


you do the things because you love God. and you do them through the Holy Spirit... as seen in Romans chapter 8.

some people are just not realizing the total indebtedness we have to the law which can never be paid... then we die and rise with Jesus in us and we become a totally other person and He through His Spirit lives in us. This entire second half of the story seems to be being left out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Claudia_T said:
God allowed polygamy but it wasnt the best way to go

the original diet was a Vegetarian one. Genesis 1:29


God gave Adam and Eve the food He designed that the human race should eat. It was contrary to His plan to have the life of any creature taken. There was no death in Eden. God gave man no permission to eat animal food until after the flood. After the flood, everything had been destroyed upon which man eat, and therefore the Lord in their necessity gave Noah permission to eat of the clean animals which he had taken with him into the ark. But this doesnt mean that animal food was the most healthful article of food for man to have.

You’re right about God giving animals to man as food after the flood.

Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant Gen 9:3

But be careful here with asserting that it was contrary to God’s plan to have the life of any creature taken. God doesn’t change, and prior to Gen 9:3 animals were killed as a sacrifice to God (Abel and Noah are mentioned specifically). Under the Law animals were sacrificed, and Jesus submitted Himself to the Law, fulfilling the Law. I don’t think He did anything that would be contrary to God’s original plan.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Claudia,

I agree with you. I don't mean to suggest that most of the people here are seeking salvation through the Law. Works are a result of faith, and we are not in anyway justified by the Law or works apart from faith. Perhaps just stating the verses didn’t adequately state my view. Salvation is based on the promise previous to the Law, and thankfully we are not under the Law.

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. Gal 3:24

You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. Jms 2:22-23





I don’t have any qualms with people eating pork, or not eating pork. I think we’d be more healthy if we ate veggies, but that’s my opinion (and one I don’t follow).

I’d also be more healthy if I’d go run 5 miles, which I came in early to do this morning, but I don’t think it’ll happen. (I’m sitting here in a jogging suit, with my iPod, but that’s about as far as I’ll get today).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top