-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Dietary Laws
- Thread starter gekko
- Start date
Leviticus 19:19 (ASV)--Originally posted by rbell:
Are you wearing a poly/cotton shirt?
That's a levitical code violation.
By your definition, a sin.
"Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed: neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together. "
Galatians 2:11-12 (RSV)
"11. But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party"
Galatians 2:14-16
" But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" 15 We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, 16 yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified"
Here Paul rebukes Peter..
"11. But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party"
Galatians 2:14-16
" But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" 15 We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, 16 yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified"
Here Paul rebukes Peter..
did God command Abraham to kill his son Issac?Originally posted by Snitzelhoff:
Well, Gekko, you obviously believe that SOME of the Levitical laws have passed, correct? I mean, do you still stone people for sinning? So just because laws can be designed for a certain period and people (as the dietary laws were), that does not mean God changes. God had His reasons for creating those laws for the Hebrew nation when He did.
God mentioned the clean and unclean animals to take on the Ark for sacrifices, as Genesis 8:20 shows us.
Peter, if you recall, had been known to be wrong before. This is the same guy who took it upon himself to rebuke Jesus in Matthew 16:22. This pattern is repeated in Acts 10. God gave him a command ("Kill and eat") and Peter corrected God on the matter. Now, either God was wrong for commanding sin, or Peter was wrong for disobeying. I have a much easier time believing Peter was wrong, since God is... well, God.
Michael
Snitzelhoff
New Member
The vision was used to teach Peter a lesson. God used food that once was unclean to teach a lesson about people who were once unclean. And when God told Peter to eat the food that used to be unclean, Peter corrected God on the matter. Are you implying he was right to correct God and disobey the command?that vision. as explained before - was not about food - it is a representation of jews and gentiles.
Michael
Snitzelhoff
New Member
I'm sorry I didn't catch this in time to reply to it in the post a minute ago, Claudia. But, yes, God did command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. However, that example differs from this in two key points:did God command Abraham to kill his son Issac?
1. God was commanding sacrifice, not murder. So God was not commanding sin, as you claim He was in Acts 10.
2. Abraham obeyed, or was about to, when God sent the ram and told him not to go through with it. Peter defied the command of God thrice in Acts 10 before learning his lesson.
God does not command what is sinful.
Michael
So God was just using symbolism? How nice I guess now unbelievers can claim John 3:16 is nothing more than symbolism.Originally posted by Claudia_T:
...and if wanted to convey a message to someone... such as to Peter, telling him not to regard the Gentiles as unclean anymore, what could you use as symbolism?
Snitzelhoff
New Member
Ok. Now, can you decisively say, from the passage, that this was the case with Peter? Moreover, that doesn't defeat the point that what God commanded of Abraham wasn't sin. You believe that what He commanded of Peter was.but still, Michael, it shows that sometimes God commands people to do something that He really didnt actually intend for them to follow through on.
First, the command came from Solomon, not God. Secondly, the command was intended to be defied. Can that ever be said of a command from God Himself?wouldnt it of been a pretty mean, cruel, sinful thing Solomon was asking, to actually cut this poor innocent kid in half?
So you're advocating telling God "No"?and the woman says NO NO please dont cut the child in half... just as Peter said NO NO Lord I cannot do that.
Then Abraham would have disobeyed God's later command not to kill Isaac.and with abraham - if he did end up killing isaac because God told him to. then what?
You have yet to directly answer two questions:
1. Was God commanding Peter to sin?
2. Was Peter right in defying the command of God?
Michael