The Dietary Laws

[BobRyan]

BTW - just a side note.

I never bring up the Lev 11 topic because I much prefer to focus on the fact that the saints "are THOSE WHO keep the Commandments of God" as John says in Rev 12 and 14 and as John quotes Christ as saying in John 14:15. Or else talking about the Calvinist vs Arminian debate or the OSAS vs Bible debates. OR keeping prophetic timelines in a useful 'intact' state etc.

Having said that -

The weakness of the Bible position of those who argue for eating rats, rocks and rubbish -- (because they are all "things") simply because they need to argue "against" God's Word in Lev 11 is so glaring - that I just have not been able to resist pointing out the flaws in their arguments.

So -- maybe a weakness on my part that makes me want to keep highlighting where their argument so blatantly fails "The test of scripture".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Alcott]

There is no flaw in living one's life by New Testament scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

The NT Authors "repeatedly" show respect and honor and obedience to scripture as God's Word!

How people today can suppose a usage for the NT authors that would justify rejection of scripture is beyond all logic and reason.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by gekko:
the unclean animals were meant to clean up the earth... no? (can't find the verse as im at school)

i dont believe God intended the unclean animals to be food in the first place...

but then again... all the animals were made to be herbivores it says in genesis...

so i really dont know...hmm..

Once again gekko is on the right track.

I don't get how he is doing it!

The "puppies, kittens, bats and rats" are really NOT for food just as Lev 11 states!

hmmm ... how does this all come so easily to gekko?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Paul in both Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 talks about eating or not eating meat...

To respect those that refuse to eat that which they consider unclean...

While allowing for those that have no compunctions to eating that same meat...

But, to say that they were in obedience to Scripture, which in the context of this thread means OT Dietary Laws, is adding to Scripture that which is not there...

In fact adding that phrase directly contradicts the Edict from the Jerusalem Council to the Gentile Church.

Which included only two dietary prohibitons...

Things Strangled and Blood...

Not quite as all inclusive as you would have us believe...

Colosians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

SMM

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
Paul in both Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 talks about eating or not eating meat...

Very true - both of them deal non-meat eating as in "vegetables only" vs meat eating. But only 1Cor 8 shows WHY the two sides divide up in that way since we have NO basis for such a division in what they called "scripture" the OT.

To respect those that refuse to eat that which they consider unclean...

In both cases the "context is FOOD". If we try to ignore context and pretend it is "whatever is a THING" then some pretty strange ideas result - that is why exegesis is so much better then eisegesis.

SMM

While allowing for those that have no compunctions to eating that same meat...

But, to say that they were in obedience to Scripture, which in the context of this thread means OT Dietary Laws, is adding to Scripture that which is not there...

Well first of all - the ones in 1Cor 8 that did not eat meat offerred to idols were "in obedience to the Acts 15 command of the NT saints". Paul was actually arguing that this was "The WEAK case" in Romans 14 AND in 1Cor 8!

Secondly - it is very EASY to see the TWO views in 1 Cor 8. The Acts 15 view vs the one that Paul had which was that "Idols don't mean nuthin' " instead of seeing them as "competing gods'" NEITHER of those sides was an "abolish Lev 11 and start eating puppies and rats" side.

In Romans 14 we see the two sides are "vegetables only vs meat AND vegetables".

(Although earlier you wanted to make the two sides in Romans 14 be -- "Vegetables only vs ROCKS-Buildings-and-Vegetables").

But then you want to eisegete in LEV 11. So my question for you is WHICH side in Romans 14 was the pro-Lev 11 and which was opposing it?

IT is HARD to imagine "Vegetables only" Was the PRO-LEV 11 view since Lev 11 says NOTHING about Vegetables.

IT is hard to imagine that the "Rocks and buildings" side was the PRO-Lev-11 side either.

So in your attempt to insert Lev 11 into the text of Romans 14 while ignoring the obivous link it has to 1Cor 8 - WHICH side is the PRo-Lev-11 side that needed to be squashed or shown to be "weak"??

Basically the attempt to eisegete IN Lev 11 into the discussion of Romans 14 so as to show it to be WEAK or abolished totally fails. THE ISSUE in Romans 14 is "Vegetables only VS MEAT-AND-Vegetables".

And that is the same thing we see in 1Cor 8!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BTW I realize you were leaping off a wild and high limb when you argued for eating "rocks and buildings" but I wanted to point out that if such an urestricted no-context view of "THINGS" in Romans 14 were the actual point a LOT of NT saints would have been "choking" on the idea of eating "rocks and buildings"!! This non-descript issue in Romans 14 would have been given HUGE detail arguing FOR "Rocks and buildings as FOOD".

As it is we have LOTS of detail in 1Cor 8 on "vegetables only vs vegetables-and-meat".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
BTW I realize you were leaping off a wild and high limb when you argued for eating "rocks and buildings" but I wanted to point out that if such an urestricted no-context view of "THINGS" in Romans 14 were the actual point a LOT of NT saints would have been "choking" on the idea of eating "rocks and buildings"!! This non-descript issue in Romans 14 would have been given HUGE detail arguing FOR "Rocks and buildings as FOOD".

In Christ,

Bob

Again you twist my posts as you twist the Scriptures to your own preconcieved ideals...

SMM

 

[BobRyan]

Try responding to actual points. In the case of the previous post you are asked to defend your "rocks and buildings as food" idea and to show how this would NOT cause a big stir in the church.

In the case of the post before that you were asked to show WHICH side of the debate in Romans 14 was the Lev 11 side so we could understand their argument and see how they lost the debate.

As long as you respond reason-inabsentia as in the case above - your argument merely languishes.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[gekko]

i dont know what it all means - but i do know this.

both romans 14 and 1corinthians 8 are talking about... uh let me give a couple references:

romans 14:13 "Let us not there fore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."

1 corinthians 8:13 "Where fore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."


if i think that drinking wine is wrong - and you drink wine in front of me - i would take offense.

that is what paul is preaching against - don't offend people by building up a stumblingblock so as to make it possible for them to sin.
romans 14:20 "for meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offense."

am i making any sense?

 

[BobRyan]

In 1 Cor 8 that issue is meat offerrred to idols. The issue there is that there are gentiles newly converted that view idols as "competing god's". There were jews in the church that had always believed in "ONE GOD" not many. They thought of the idols as "rocks". (Rocks - something that some people have stated as "things" to be eaten -- but that is another story)

So the Jews were eating meat offerred to idols as though "it was nothing" while the gentiles refused to eat such a thing as it shows disrespect to the True God.

Paul states that the Gentiles were "weak" in thinking of the idol as "a real thing competing with God" - but still he would "Not eat meat at all" from now on if that was causing the gentile Christian to stumble.

Here we have the clear example of the "no meat at all option" vs the "vegetables AND meat" debate.

On a side note - it is interesting that Paul's position in 1Cor 8 is actually somewhat contradictory to the Acts 15 "decision" in that he regards that decision as "weak" by comparison. Still he fully supports it for those whose conscience is in anyway tempted to think of those idols as "competing gods".

See the 1Cor8 vs Rom 14 post

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3922/11.html#000151


In Christ,

Bob

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

That's true enough Gekko...

But, in Christ that is a two-way street in Love...

In love it means that if I know you are offended by my wine I will not offer it to you or attempt to place you in a position where you will be offended...

I wouldn't invite you and your future(?) wife to dinner at say "Outback" where alchohol is served...

At the same time, if I have the liberty of having a small glass of wine with a spaghetti dinner and you find out...

(that is, I don't go showing off or flaunting my liberty to you.)

In love you will not try to impress upon me the restrictions you have placed on yurself...

Only in mutual respect can we survive...

I can not use my liberty to destroy you...

And, you can not use your lack of liberty to destroy me...

While I respect your right to adhere to the Laws and Ordinances...

(As long as you can convince me you are not relying on that adherence for your Salvation Status.

)

I vehemntly object to people trying to impress their lack of liberty on me...

SMM

 

[gekko]

i agree.

 

[BobRyan]

In 1Cor 8 those who "had liberty" are the Jews who have the foundation of God's Word - scripture and KNEW about the ONE TRUE God with all the rest being "things" -- rocks.

The gentiles were intimidated by the "rocks" thinking of them as competing deities. Paul calls them "weak" but offers to "eat only vegetables" if that is what is needed not to offend them.

In Romans 14 we have the same point made.

How wonderful that God would explain this principle so thoroughly!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Claudia_T]

Well I am very glad that I dont need to drink alcoholic beverages to feel "liberated".

 

[Claudia_T]

Spiritual Mad Man

Well I can see now why you seem to hold so ferociously to your "grace" theory... it seems to have more to do with "guarding" your so-called "liberty" to be able to drink alcoholic beverages.


Gal:5:13: For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh


You cant have a "little bit" of alcohol anymore than you can have a "little bit" of witchcraft, murder, adultery, or idolatry... "moderately drunk" just doesnt get it.


Galatians 5:
6: This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17: For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18: But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19: Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these ; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20: Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21: Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God .


....I'd say its more like you are "Walking in the Spirits" more than "Walking in the Spirit".


2Pt:2:19: While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

 

[gekko]

claudia - please read over this thread i started just a little while back.

Did Jesus Drink Alcoholic Beverages?

God bless.

 

[Claudia_T]

gekko, I already know that Jesus didnt drink alcohol... thats a misconception.

 

[Claudia_T]

Prov:20:1: Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.


The Bible uses wine in two contexts... one is fermented, alcoholic and the other is pure grape juice

Its just a bunch of baloney to claim you are "in liberty" so that you can drink booze..


Proverbs 23
29: Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes?
30: They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine.
31: Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.
32: At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.

I dont care what any of you say, I know better.

Daniel 1:
8: But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.


There is "new" wine and there is fermented wine..

"Honor the Lord with thy substance, and with the first fruits of all thine increase: so shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine." Prov. 3:9, 10.

It is just plain baloney when people try to get you to believe that you can drink something that is going to dethrone your reasoning abilities.

[ May 14, 2006, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Claudia_T ]

 

[gekko]

please read the thread posted above.

the bible knows better.