-
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!
The Dietary Laws
- Thread starter gekko
- Start date
SpiritualMadMan
New Member
The fact is, is that when the shepherd breaks the sheeps leg He has to carry it everywhere the flock goes until the leg heals...
This means for a spell the sheep and shepherd are pretty much inseparble...
The sheep relearns its masters voice in the process and is very unlikely to stray from the flock again...
Mike Sr.
This means for a spell the sheep and shepherd are pretty much inseparble...
The sheep relearns its masters voice in the process and is very unlikely to stray from the flock again...
Mike Sr.
Okay, I was just wondering because I strayed away from God for the past few years in a big way. Then something happened and I injured my foot (now feet) and have been lying around in bed for the last 3 months. It has made me really wake up and get back to God but I am hoping this will heal. I dont know if it is going to end up where it has to do with pinched nerves that will be pretty easy to take care of or if its going to end up being injured arteries. Or just not ever finding out and hoping I just get better.
And all day yesterday I was mad at God and crying and all upset asking why He wont heal me and whats He's trying to do to me and all that kind of thing... and I was also mad because it seems like He wont even answer me..
so it seemed strange that gekko mentioned this thing today about the Shepherd and breaking the sheep's leg. And I wondered why he breaks it and if it ends up healing. I just thought maybe God was trying to tell me something.
Whats weird is my parents said when they were naming me my mother wanted to call me Theresa and my father for some reason insisted on called me Claudia. He said he didnt know why but I just had to be called Claudia. And you know what I found out the name Claudia means? Lame. Isnt that weird?
I know the angel touched Jacob's leg and injured him.
well anyway, back now to our regularly stationed program.
And all day yesterday I was mad at God and crying and all upset asking why He wont heal me and whats He's trying to do to me and all that kind of thing... and I was also mad because it seems like He wont even answer me..
so it seemed strange that gekko mentioned this thing today about the Shepherd and breaking the sheep's leg. And I wondered why he breaks it and if it ends up healing. I just thought maybe God was trying to tell me something.
Whats weird is my parents said when they were naming me my mother wanted to call me Theresa and my father for some reason insisted on called me Claudia. He said he didnt know why but I just had to be called Claudia. And you know what I found out the name Claudia means? Lame. Isnt that weird?
I know the angel touched Jacob's leg and injured him.
well anyway, back now to our regularly stationed program.
i used to get mad at God because of my lymphnodes - they've been swollen 10x more then normal size - for over 4 years now... maybe its a type of "thorn in the side" maybe not. who knows.
but why should one get mad at God?
we shouldn't. we're lucky (for lack of better wording) that God's given us this day to live. we could've been dead last night. who knows?
God is more concerned with the split artery in the neck rather then the sliver in the finger...
but why should one get mad at God?
we shouldn't. we're lucky (for lack of better wording) that God's given us this day to live. we could've been dead last night. who knows?
God is more concerned with the split artery in the neck rather then the sliver in the finger...
No you don't have to keep the diatary laws. The reason I thought the diatary laws were in place was to keep people healthy. Just like where it speaks of the bodily waste...
Deu 23:12-13 Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad:
13 And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:
I for one are glad some of these laws are in the bible. If we don't obey them then we won't be as blessed health wise. Think about it... the Lord had a reason to tell Israel all these things in the desert for a reason. I don't think it was for punishment but for their health. As I remember the stories of their wandering in the wilderness... as long as they were obediant they seemed to fair pretty well too.
SpiritualMadMan
New Member
But, after they entered the land their clothing and shoes *did* wear out even though they kept all the laws...
And, people did get sick and die...
No number of Laws and/or Ordinaces can offset the effect of the Corruption and Contamination of sin in our environment...
Now, Grace... That's another matter entirely.
Mike Sr.
And, people did get sick and die...
No number of Laws and/or Ordinaces can offset the effect of the Corruption and Contamination of sin in our environment...
Now, Grace... That's another matter entirely.
Mike Sr.
I think this is a preacher's myth. I've been searching for corroboration but can't find anything. I did find this site by people who raise sheep who say that's a bizarre idea. Does anyone have any historical corroboration?
Now I'm not sure what size sheep were in biblical times, but it looks like a smallish ewe today is about 90 lbs. I don't think shepherds really lugged around incapacitated 90 lb sheep. If I had a sheep that size that was misbehaving, I'd just slaughter it and sell the meat.
The other possibility is that we're talking about crippling lambs that wander off, but lambs stick close to their mothers.
I heard this when I was just a child and thought it was awful then and haven't really changed my mind!
SpiritualMadMan
New Member
Petrel,
I, too, have heard it all my life, it seems...
It's got to have some basis for it's existence...
Maybe it *is* just a good Armenian yarn to keep the flock straight.
Bummer!
Another perfectly good illustration blow away!
Mike D.
I, too, have heard it all my life, it seems...
It's got to have some basis for it's existence...
Maybe it *is* just a good Armenian yarn to keep the flock straight.
Bummer!
Another perfectly good illustration blow away!
Mike D.
yeah I'll say its a bummer especially since I was using it as how I thought God was doing me and now this guy says "I don't think shepherds really lugged around incapacitated 90 lb sheep. If I had a sheep that size that was misbehaving, I'd just slaughter it and sell the meat."
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Sadly for those arguing in favor of "chewing on everything that has breath" the rat is banned in Lev 11 AND gets specific mention in Isaiah 66!
That means that "kittens, puppies, bats, etc" are all "out".
Most here seem to think it was "cruel" of God to forbid chewing on kittens and to insist on limiting cave man to "Beef, lamb, goat, Chicken, Salmon, Sea Bass" etc.
As much as God's idea on that point "appears to be a bad idea" to those here - (and certainly those living in the far east) --
Yet the word of God stands!
In Christ,
Bob
Mark 7:18-1919-- And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
It this true, or is it a lie?
It this true, or is it a lie?
2 Cor.6:17 "Touch not the unclean thing", and lPet.l:15, "Be ye holy for I am holy". Here the apostles quote OT commands which referred to unclean meats, but now (as the contexts show) their spiritual intent is to avoid unclean behavior and people. If you do that, then you've fulfilled the laws of clean and unclean. The behavior of the types of animals that were labeled unclean typified the type of people and behavior God's people were to avoid. They were not health laws, as the commandment- keepers argue. Most 'unclean' seafood has been shown to be healthier than 'clean' red meats! With better raising of pigs today, even pork has been proclaimed to be healthier than even beef and chicken now. It is secular critics, rejecting divine inspiration who claim the restriction was only for health: “those laws were given because they didn’t know how to cook it properly back then”. In that case, if it were “health”, it would be null and void anyway, as we do now know how to cook pork to avoid trichinosis, and shellfish to avoid the toxins it has if killed to early. Once again, it's clean poultry that has now surpassed pork with the threat of salmonella poisoning if not cooked completely! The Lawkeepers still insist with the "unclean", "it is killing you and you don't know it"; and it could "result in premature death after continuous usage for, say ten, or thirty, or fifty years" as Armstrong suggests, but people who eat pork and shellfish and eat healthy in the rest of their diet are no less healthy, neither die any younger than the kosher. The oldest people in the world often eat pork and are otherwise non-kosher. So then what is this negative health effect? Everyone dies, and pork has not been shown to be a cause of it. Lev.11:44 clearly shows that the purpose of those laws was holiness. But we all know now that holiness or sanctification is the work of the God through the Holy Spirit (2 Thess.2:13).
A "clean" and "unclean" was recognized in Noah's time (Gen.7:2), and before God had declared that all animals would be for food (ch.9:3), but still, there is no mention of God commanding them to avoid the so-called "unclean" animals—ONLY blood (which was mentioned in Acts 15. At that time, clean and unclean were in regard to sacrifice (8:20) and people were not yet given any meat for food. Then God allows all meat to be eaten in the next chapter. Armstrong tries to explain this away (Principles of Healthful Living, p.20) by emphasizing "as I have given you the green herb", and then draws attention to the fact that we do not eat poisonous herbs, which is taken as a "restriction" ("God did not give them as food"), so likewise, "as He gave us all green herbs" with "restrictions", so he gives us "all meats" with restrictions. But this was not a command that God gave man, but rather man on his own would also discover and avoid what was not healthy. Armstrong says that man "can not by himself determine which flesh foods are harmful", and is thus why God determined that for us. But the restrictions on meat all had to do with spiritual "defilement" (and Armstrong had just insisted on the previous page that this law was not "spiritual"! He totally misses the meaning of the concept of "defilement"!) Nowhere are any plants termed "unclean" or "defiling" anyone, as meats later were! Nowhere do we see man led to eat these things, and be condemned by God for it. If they did, they would suffer the natural consequences, but not the judgment of the Law of Moses. And if pork and shellfish had some hidden harm (other than what is known about them not cooked properly), then we would never have people who eat them living healtlily to a ripe old age. Most if not all of those centenarians we often see on TV are not "kosher". It's amazing the lengths people will go to read things into the words of scripture.
http://members.aol.com/etb700/sabbath.html
A "clean" and "unclean" was recognized in Noah's time (Gen.7:2), and before God had declared that all animals would be for food (ch.9:3), but still, there is no mention of God commanding them to avoid the so-called "unclean" animals—ONLY blood (which was mentioned in Acts 15. At that time, clean and unclean were in regard to sacrifice (8:20) and people were not yet given any meat for food. Then God allows all meat to be eaten in the next chapter. Armstrong tries to explain this away (Principles of Healthful Living, p.20) by emphasizing "as I have given you the green herb", and then draws attention to the fact that we do not eat poisonous herbs, which is taken as a "restriction" ("God did not give them as food"), so likewise, "as He gave us all green herbs" with "restrictions", so he gives us "all meats" with restrictions. But this was not a command that God gave man, but rather man on his own would also discover and avoid what was not healthy. Armstrong says that man "can not by himself determine which flesh foods are harmful", and is thus why God determined that for us. But the restrictions on meat all had to do with spiritual "defilement" (and Armstrong had just insisted on the previous page that this law was not "spiritual"! He totally misses the meaning of the concept of "defilement"!) Nowhere are any plants termed "unclean" or "defiling" anyone, as meats later were! Nowhere do we see man led to eat these things, and be condemned by God for it. If they did, they would suffer the natural consequences, but not the judgment of the Law of Moses. And if pork and shellfish had some hidden harm (other than what is known about them not cooked properly), then we would never have people who eat them living healtlily to a ripe old age. Most if not all of those centenarians we often see on TV are not "kosher". It's amazing the lengths people will go to read things into the words of scripture.
http://members.aol.com/etb700/sabbath.html
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
#1. Mark 7 is a pre-cross statement. Is it your position that they were chewing on rats and cats pre-cross with Christ's approval??
#2. Mark 7 is about BREAD/WHEAT being UNCLEAN. The RULE of unclean in Mark 7 is NOT God's RULE it is a "man-made-tradition" and Christ says it is worthless. USING the fact that man's rule is bogus - to then argue that GOD's rules against chewing on cats dogs and rats is also bogus -- is merely the outworking of man-made-tradition it is not exegesis.
#3. THE argument in Mark 7 is that SIN is a "substance" that gets on your hands THEN gets on your BREAD (or any other food you eat) and THEN gets IN you so that you then become sinful because you failed to baptize your hands ceremonially and CLEANSE them from sin.
Christ states that NO SIN comes inside you as a SUBSTANCE that "got on your hands and contaminated your food"! He is practically laughing at that man made tradition.
He then blasts those who attempt to use man-made tradition to MAKE VOID the OT text of God's Word!
How those who choose man's-tradition over God's Word here - can think that THIS would be a good place to go to negate more scripture - is beyond me!!
Why go to the VERY text that is going to expose the flaw in your argument??
In Christ,
Bob