Seventh-Day Adventists

[BobRyan]

Your post is very instructive -- Where Christ says "IF you Love me KEEP My Commandments" you say "BECAUSE I Love Christ I have no regard at all for His Law".

Where Paul says "Do we then make void the Law of God through our faith??" you say "YOU BET - because paying attention to it would restrict our liberty".

But Paul says "God FORBID! in fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God by our faith" Rom 3:31.

The contrast in doctrinal position between what you have stated and what we find in the NT could not be more apparent.

Then "most instructively" you add in the post above - that reading this thread as it points out that gap confirms your belief that ignoring the Law of God as a way of showing your Love for Christ and acceptance of the Gospel -- is the best way to go.

In 1John 2:4-8 John flatly condemns that teaching.

In Matt 7 Christ says "not everyone WHO SAYS Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of God but they who DO the will of the Father".

In Romans 2 Paul says "for it is NOT the hearers of the Law that are just - but the DOERS of the Law will be JUSTIFIED" speaking of GOSPEL justification.

It is my position that you have to accept ALL of the Word of God to get a true and accurate picture of the Gospel that it teaches.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 10
9 On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray.
10 But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance;
11 and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,
12 and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.
13 A voice came to him, ""Get up, Peter, kill and eat!''
14 But Peter said, ""By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.''
15 Again a voice came to him a second time, "" What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.''
16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.
17 Now 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;

At this point – certain things are glaringly obvous.

#1. Peter did NOT take the “wheat debate” in Mark 7 and Matt 15 to mean “eat rats cats and dogs” for he states even now that he has never done such a thing.

#2. Peter makes his point about having NEVER eaten unholy or unclean food – with honor as a point of faithfulness. He does not state it in the form “I have really really been trying to eat more rats and less beef steak but I just have not been able to quite get those rats and cats down my throat. Please pardon me this one last time for not eating enough dogs and bats”.

#3. At the end of the vision Peter is not “CLEAR on his need to eat rats” – rather he is confused and wants to know what the ACTUAL meaning of the vision is!!


18 and calling out, they were asking whether Simon, who was also called Peter, was staying there.
19 While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, ""Behold, three men are looking for you.
20 ""But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself.''

This part appears to be very clear to Peter – no mystery at all. The Holy Spirit is speaking and Peter instantly obeys. He does not say “OH NO LORD I have never associated with gentiles”


21 Peter went down to the men and said, ""Behold, I am the one you are looking for; what is the reason for which you have come?''
22 They said, ""Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews, was divinely directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and hear a message from you.''
23 So he invited them in and gave them lodging. And on the next day he got up and went away with them, and some of the brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
24 On the following day he entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them and had called together his relatives and close friends.
25 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshiped him.
26 But Peter raised him up, saying, "" Stand up; I too am just a man.''
27 As he talked with him, he entered and found many people assembled.
28 And 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.
29 ""That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for. So I ask for what reason you have sent for me.'

Here again Peter makes the point of immediate and instant willingness to do all that God has commanded EVEN if it goes against the unbiblical man-made tradition of the Jews! Peter is eager to be IN harmony with God’s command once it is clear – and not in confusing symbols.

And here Peter gives us the "interpretation" of the vision "God has SHOWN me that I should not call ANY MAN unholy or unclean"
'
30 Cornelius said, "" Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour; and behold, a man stood before me in shining garments,
31 and he said, "Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God.
32 "Therefore send to Joppa and invite Simon, who is also called Peter, to come to you; he is staying at the house of Simon the tanner by the sea.'
33 ""So I sent for you immediately, and you have been kind enough to come. Now then, we are all here present before God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord.''
34 Opening his mouth, Peter said: ""I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality,
35 but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.

This is the second time Peter has emphasized the true meaning of the dream. Notice it is not in the form “evangelize gentiles and try to eat more rats while you are doing it”

 

[Amy.G]

Bob, let it go. I respect your right to believe whatever you want to, but you won't be converting me. May God open your eyes.
:1_grouphug:

 

[Claudia_T]

Commandments

Well I have to say that I just dont know how any Christian can claim it doesnt matter what you do, that you are just "under grace". You have to ignore so many Bible verses. You have to claim that you can go to heaven without being born again, and without knowing God. Talk about people needing to open their eyes!


1Jn:4:16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

1Jn:5:2: By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

1Jn:4:7: Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

1Jn:4:8: He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

1Jn:4:13: Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

1Jn:3:24: And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

1Jn:3:14: We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

1Jn:3:15: Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

1Jn:3:5: And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

1Jn:3:6: Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

1Jn:2:29: If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

1Jn:2:4: He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

1Jn:2:5: But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

1Jn:2:11: But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

1Jn:2:3: And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

1Jn:4:20: If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

Matthew 5: 17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.



...and there are scores more Bible verses like these.


Also, it is more than slightly amiss to strain at a gnat and say "well you could accidentally kill a flea" so that negates anything about love or murder or hate... and that negates any and all of these Bible verses... because you've broken the law just by breathing..." Come on, people. Stop making our God out to be so legalistic, please? : )


and believe it or not, you are NOT free to decide what LOVE is, God has already done that for you.

Romans 13:
8: Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9: For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10: Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Please dont tell me you all dont know what that means : )

Its just like when Jesus said Love God and love your neighbor, on these two commandments HANG THE WHOLE LAW...

You all can figure this out!


Most assuredly it does not mean you are now free to murder, steal and worship idols then claim that you LOVE GOD AND LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR.


Claudia

 

[Claudia_T]

TO EVERYONE IN GENERAL:

...and I just gotta say that if you all think you need to go eat some bats, rats and cats in order to show just how "free" you are in the Gospel....


well I sure hope you dont follow this out to its logical conclusion and go worship idols, murder your neighbor and steal in order to prove the same thing!


The Manager at Walmart wouldnt appreciate it as you stuff articles of clothing under your arms to sneak outta the store to steal stuff... they'd soon be going "Hide everything! Here come the Christians!"


and I dont think it would go over very well when you just try to explain to them that all you were doing was trying to show how free you are in the Gospel. I dont think they'd buy it and I dont think God does either for that matter.

Claudia

 

[Claudia_T]

Okay people,

Let's go read Matthew 22.

NOTE that the Pharisees were trying to ENTRAP Jesus with His words so one of the things they asked was "Well what is in the Law?" Jesus answers them love God and love your neighbor, on these two hang the whole law...

NOW THINK!!! thats right, THINK!! IF Jesus were saying anything DIFFERENT then the Pharisees had always known to be the Law, WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE that at the END of the entire thing it says this?


46: And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.


hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??? why didnt they rather say something like "AHA! we caught you!" but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO



Matthew 22:
15: Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
16: And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17: Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18: But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19: Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20: And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21: They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
22: When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
23: The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
24: Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
25: Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27: And last of all the woman died also.
28: Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29: Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30: For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
31: But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
33: And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
34: But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.
35: Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36: Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37: Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38: This is the first and great commandment.
39: And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40: On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
41: While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42: Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
43: He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
44: The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
45: If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
46: And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

 

[BobRyan]

I can just see "another topic" emerging on this thread based on that last post....:saint:

 

[DHK]

Bob said
I point out that EVEN in Act 10 where you are pointing this conversation Peter gives the dream's interpretation three times and NEVER (not even ONCE) says "SO EAT MORE RATS to show that you are a Christian".
Bob

Your inconsistencies throughout this debate are glaring. It is not so much Peter's own interpretation of his own dream that we are concerned with here. It is God's own words to Peter. God's very words cannot be ignored. But that is exactly what you keep on doing.
God said:

Do not call unclean what I have called clean.
God said: Arise Peter and eat (meaning eat unclean animals). That was the command. He didn't say to eat unclean humans or Gentiles. It was food he was speaking of.
This vision is to be taken literally. It is not an allegory, a myth, a legend, etc. It is what happened, historically true. And those were God's words. They cannot be avoided. God said about his creatures (formerly called unclean), Don't call them unclean for they are not.

Now that entire vision was an object lesson to be learned from. We all know that. But that doesn't mean you can trash God's Word and avoid the command of God by doing so. He still gave the command. And it wasn't allegorical. Don't call these animals unclean. Arise and eat of them. They are clear statements of the Word of God, that don't have any mystical meaning.

There is nothing hard to understand about:

1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

I don't know what your problem is Bob. The Scriptures are very plain on this subject.

 

[BobRyan]

Your inconsistencies throughout this debate are glaring. It is not so much Peter's own interpretation of his own dream that we are concerned with here. It is God's own words to Peter.

What an interesting way to turn a blind eye to the text - to pick the man-made traditions and interpretations over what Peter gives as THE interpretation.

In Acts 10 - "God says to kill and eat" rats mice cats dogs etc.

Peter ALONE is recorded as saying "God has shown me to CALL NO MAN unclean".

You argue that we should IGNORE the words of the Apostle Peter - and simply cling to the topic eating rats instead.

That is "instructive" for the reader. God is SHOWING us in the FULL text what the meaning IS - and you claim we should IGNORE the full text and just focus on the vision of the rats and bats.

Notice that NOT ONCE does Peter interpret the vision as "EAT RATS my fellow Jewish Christians - no longer eat beef steak only. And oh yeah I also think that God might have been using the symbols in thei vision to say that we should call no man unholy or unclean - but dont' focus on that point because it is just ME guessing and not being inspired by God at all on this point. God wants us to focus on the more important issue -- so come on -- ... EAT RATS".

The limb you have climbed out on makes it easy to expose the flaw in your man-made tradition DHK.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In Lev 11 "the scripture is very plain" showing mankind what IS FOOD and "what is NOT food" -- what is NOT to be eaten. This scripture is what the NT saints had for "scripture" according to the NT writers.

Here we see a law about eating CLEAN animals – if they die (rather than simply killing a healthy animal). This problem with dead animals is applied to BOTH clean AND unclean animals. Clearly a health issue that would continue today.

Swarming insects and other types of insects not allowed by Christ the Creator as food for humans.

Lev 11
41 " [b]Now every

swarming thing that swarms on the earth is detestable, not to be eaten.[/

b]
42 "Whatever crawls on its belly, and whatever walks on all fours, whatever has many feet, in respect to every swarming thing that swarms on the earth, you shall not eat them, for they are detestable.
43 " Do not render yourselves detestable through any of the swarming things[/b] that swarm; and you shall not make yourselves unclean with them so that you become unclean.

God appeals to His own Lordship over mankind – His role as Creator and His right to call mankind to be “Holy” for “God IS Holy” rather than God’s people choosing to be “detestable”

Lev 11
44 "For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and [b]be holy, for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean[/b] with any of the swarming things that swarm on the earth.
45 " For I am the LORD who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus [b]you shall be holy, for I am holy.[/b]'''

God calls upon His people to BE like God in walking in holiness. John says we are to WALK as Christ walked in 1John 2.

Paul says we Have “the mind of Christ” in 1Cor 2.

In summary God calls this section HIS view of what may be eaten – and what should not be eaten at all.

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.

Clearly then the rat, cat, dog and bat sandwich “is not to be eaten”, and mankind can freely read and know this.

Christ the Creator did not say “please do not eat “too much” of the rat, dog, and cat sandwich”. Nor did He argue “because you are in poor health today - then for a while you may not eat of the rat, cat, dog and bat sandwich”. All such edits of the text are merely “wishful thinking”.

So this CONTEXT for what the Word of God "says" IS FOOD becomes the context for 1Tim 4 regarding FOOD that is approved by the WORD of God

1Tim 4

4For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude;
5for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.


Just as we saw in Matt 15 and Mark 7 where the authors insert that Jesus “declared ALL foods clean” – (In context of debunking the man-made-tradition that sin sticks to the fingers and then gets on WHEAT that you are eating then gets inside you and you become unclean). The apostles did not see this as a command to “eat rats” as Peter points out in Acts 10. ““OH NO Lord – for I have NEVER eaten what is unclean”.

 

[Claudia_T]

Just as we saw in Matt 15 and Mark 7 where the authors insert that Jesus “declared ALL foods clean” – (In context of debunking the man-made-tradition that sin sticks to the fingers and then gets on WHEAT that you are eating then gets inside you and you become unclean). The apostles did not see this as a command to “eat rats” as Peter points out in Acts 10. ““OH NO Lord – for I have NEVER eaten what is unclean”.

I think thats an excellent point there, Bob.

 

[BobRyan]

From a previous post on this thread

----------------------------------------

BobRyan said –
I point out that EVEN in Act 10 where you are pointing this conversation Peter gives the dream's interpretation three times and NEVER (not even ONCE) says "SO EAT MORE RATS to show that you are a Christian".

DHK said

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



I would argue that DHK’s statement above is in the form of “pride” that he is NOT following Lev 11 – in the same way that Peter’s Statement in Acts 10 was in the form of pride that he WAS honoring God’s Word in Lev 11.

------------------------------

This exchange brings up a point I have been dying to ask.

Surely "somebody" reading this thread has got to be a bible teacher or Pastor and also takes DHK point of view. And in that POV they surely must view the SDA position as "that mean old SDA view that is legalistic". And SURELY this has to make some kind of zinger illustration in a Bible class of some kind.

Has anyone actually tried it??

You know - go to the class and say what DHK just said -- and I quote ...

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

In response to the mean ol' legalist point of highlighting the inconvenient facts of Acts 10 like this ..

BobRyan said –
I point out that EVEN in Act 10 where you are pointing this conversation Peter gives the dream's interpretation three times and NEVER (not even ONCE) says "SO EAT MORE RATS to show that you are a Christian".

If this was tried "verbatim" -- I know I for one would love to have been a fly on the wall of that Bible class!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

From another post on this thread --

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=912556&postcount=221

Your post is very instructive -- Where Christ says "IF you Love me KEEP My Commandments" you say "BECAUSE I Love Christ I have no regard at all for His Law".

Where Paul says "Do we then make void the Law of God through our faith??" you say "YOU BET - because paying attention to it would restrict our liberty".

But Paul says "God FORBID! in fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God by our faith" Rom 3:31.

The contrast in doctrinal position between what you have stated and what we find in the NT could not be more apparent.

Then "most instructively" you add in the post above - that reading this thread as it points out that gap confirms your belief that ignoring the Law of God as a way of showing your Love for Christ and acceptance of the Gospel -- is the best way to go.

In 1John 2:4-8 John flatly condemns that teaching.

In Matt 7 Christ says "not everyone WHO SAYS Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of God but they who DO the will of the Father".

In Romans 2 Paul says "for it is NOT the hearers of the Law that are just - but the DOERS of the Law will be JUSTIFIED" speaking of GOSPEL justification.

It is my position that you have to accept ALL of the Word of God to get a true and accurate picture of the Gospel that it teaches.

In Christ,

Bob

Surely we have to admit that this is the "core" difference that is really being highlighted on the thread so far -- EVEN in the area of Lev 11 which was introduced to this thread by the "loyal opposition" to the SDA topic in general.

I believe I pointed this out on page one of the thread.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=909169&postcount=5

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

In the OT God gave civil laws for governing the Theocracy
He gave ceremonial laws pointing forward to the Messiah
He gave health laws for mankind
He gave moral laws for mankind

Because the PRECROSS statement of God is "God so loved the WORLD that HE GAVE..."

This ONE GOSPEL - ONE BIBLE - view of God's Word and salvation is new to many - but it IS the view that we hold.

In Christ,

Bob

GE:
Here you have soummed up the big objection I have against your SDA-faith. You have just told (whoever it was) they slice up the Word between the 'Word of God' and the 'Word of Jesus'. (That was said well!) Now you come, and you slice up God's Word between Law and the rest; and go on and slice up the Law into the categories here quoted.

Why can't you apply your own principle: "ONE GOSPEL - ONE BIBLE - God's Word (of) salvation" consistently? I mean this: Why can't you, instead of saying,
"God gave civil laws for governing the Theocracy
He gave ceremonial laws pointing forward to the Messiah
He gave health laws for mankind
He gave moral laws for mankind",
say:
God gave civil laws for pointing forward to the Messiah
He gave ceremonial laws pointing forward to the Messiah
He gave health laws for pointing forward to the Messiah
He gave moral laws for pointing forward to the Messiah?

Is it not what Hebrews says in its firs chapter? Is it not what Jesus said in Luke 24? and so on ... on virtually every page of the New Testament?

See Jesus Christ the Living, Risen, Word and Law of God, the All in all Fulfilment.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I see there is much said about clean and unclean meat.

I find this issue very difficult for myself. I try to see it in the greater scope of the whole Bible and the different dispensations in the story of redemption. I must eventually see the matter in the light of my personal conceptions of our God and Saviour. And right here my Calvinism steers my thinking. I believe in God being unchangeable, omni-knowing and omni-wise. I also believe the Old Testament is the Word of this Father-Lord-King and Soter. So that's my point of departure to this very small question of clean and unclean food.
THIS God said things like mice are an abomination to eat, even a beautiful animal like a snake or pig. He says it in the OT. He doesn't repeat it in the New Testament, because He does not need to: His Word is as lasting as His essential Being - would it or could it change?

I also believe there is no single Word or Word of Law God ever uttered through His servants the prophets, that ever got annulled anyhow: They are HIS words, not the words of mortals.

DHK wrote about whole cultures of peoples that will have to be changed if their eating habits were to change. Will the Chinese people die out if they stopped eating mice and dogs? Would they not be much healthier, and become more of an example of the saving power of the clean Lamb of God? May nothing be asked of anyone to sacrifice for Jesus' sake?

Where does one stop once one has sarted to make concessions? In Africa natives freely still worship their ancestors and idols while being accepted as Christians. In the same church-building, during the same service. Regularly, always. It's their culture! Catholics offer insense and fruit, just like their ancestors used to do long before Christ.

Its a long and dreary subject to think about. It taps my energy. I can better spend it by simply to trust God and leave those things untouched, and eat the clean foods He has so amply supplied - without fear, without a troubled conscience. Nobody would care in anycase . . . except maybe the God who in easy understandable language has in fact given instructions on the issue.

 

[LeBuick]

THEN PETER HIMSELF interprets the vision FOR US -- THREE times!!

Each time HE SAYS the "meaning" is "call no MAN UNCLEAN".

Not ONCE does HE say "the meaning was -- try to eat more rats, cats and dogs and ALSO while you are doing that consider taking the Gospel to the gentiles".

Bob

While you are correct about Peter sticking to his Jewish diet, don't overlook what Christ said in the vision;

Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Then see how the vision started;

Acts 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

Is Christ encouraging or tempting Peter to sin? If Peter does what Christ is telling him to do, by your admission he would be in violation of Lev 11. Would Christ come to you and tell you to Sin? Would it be a sin if you were following Christ instructions?

Yes, Peter's understanding of the vision was Christ was speaking regarding associating with Christians other than Jews but don't ignore the objects and instructions Christ used in His anology. Christ does not lie nor would he lead his people astray.

 

[Claudia_T]

well God does that some times, He told Abraham to kill his own son didnt He?

and did Abraham really kill his son?

 

[BobRyan]

GE:
Here you have soummed up the big objection I have against your SDA-faith. You have just told (whoever it was) they slice up the Word between the 'Word of God' and the 'Word of Jesus'. (That was said well!) Now you come, and you slice up God's Word between Law and the rest; and go on and slice up the Law into the categories here quoted.

Why can't you apply your own principle: "ONE GOSPEL - ONE BIBLE - God's Word (of) salvation" consistently?

When I say "they slice" I mean that they ignore one part and read another as being "valid". As LeBuick said "Two religions one God". SDA's don't do that (obviously).

By identifying national laws under a theocracy we don't then go on to try to push legislation for the death penalty for Sabbath breakers for example.

I thought this would be the part we all agreed to -

I mean this: Why can't you, instead of saying,
"God gave civil laws for governing the Theocracy
He gave ceremonial laws pointing forward to the Messiah
He gave health laws for mankind
He gave moral laws for mankind",
say:
God gave civil laws for pointing forward to the Messiah

Because obviously they don't.

He gave ceremonial laws pointing forward to the Messiah

I have said that --

He gave health laws for pointing forward to the Messiah

Because the Messiah did not die on the cross to change "biology".

The physical world remains the same today as before the cross.

Obviously.

He gave moral laws for pointing forward to the Messiah?

Because the sin of adultery pre-cross is STILL sin post-cross.

no change at the cross.

obviously. I know we both agree on this so I have no clue as to why you want to equivocate here.

If there is a way to abandon exegesis on something like the command against adultery and pretend that it speaks in some mystical way of substitutionary atonement - I have not heard of what it is.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, Peter's understanding of the vision was Christ was speaking regarding associating with Christians other than Jews but don't ignore the objects and instructions Christ used in His anology. Christ does not lie nor would he lead his people astray.

In John 6 Christ said "YOU must EAT my flesh and DRINK my blood to have eternal life" - then HE interprets those symbols as "flesh is worthless it is my WORD that has Spirit and that gives eternal LIFE". HE interprets for us - and yet some argue "NO EAT JESUS as well". But it is instructive that even the disciples that stayed in John 6 did not start biting Jesus.

Clearly that was not the meaning as we SEE in the actions of the faithful and as we READ in Christ's own interpretation of the message.

The same is true in Acts 10 -- Peter never says "I see from this vision that we should call NO MAN unholy or unclean AND that we should be eating rats".

It just is not there.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[LeBuick]

well God does that some times, He told Abraham to kill his own son didnt He?

and did Abraham really kill his son?

Abraham was stopped by God who then provided a substitute. Abraham was obedient.