-
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
I'm bailing out of this one...IMO it'll probably close down soon...too much going around in circles.
I'm glad that I'm not bound by the OT law anymore. I guess if you want to be, that's your choice.
And yes, I plan on eating a bacon cheeseburger tonight. I usually splurge on Wednesdays.
I'm glad that I'm not bound by the OT law anymore. I guess if you want to be, that's your choice.
And yes, I plan on eating a bacon cheeseburger tonight. I usually splurge on Wednesdays.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
#1. IF "God's Word contradicts God's Word" then we have a huge problem.
#2. The OT is called "Scripture" by the NT writers. If we can "dump scripture" then a "pick-and-choose" RC system would be perfectly acceptable.
In Christ,
Bob [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]
As wonderful as it would be to pretend that this is remotely a form of exegesis - it is not.
you can not bend a civil law of a nation (in this case a theocracy) to usages that are intended to wipe out the authority of God's Word.
Just because you claim not to understand what it means to have a civil law with civil penalties under a theocracy - does not mean you have found "proof" that God's Word is void.
When the NATION to whom the civil laws applies - ceases to exist as a theocracy - so also do the civil penalties it provides.
Obviously.
So when we SEE the NT authors CONTINUE to reference the SCRIPTRES of their day (the OT) as "having authorityh" and binding - we see that they are in fact being consistent!
In Christ,
Bob
Now that I think about it, to me, eating the unclean meats would be kind of like when Jesus said that you would be able to pick up snakes and scorpions and they wouldnt harm you.
Some people think if they just continually eat scientifically proven potentially harmful things like pork, but just say a prayer over it, that God will just always miraculously protect them from harm.
Just like those who pick up snakes at their church services pick up snakes to prove they have faith in God. Like they say though, sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear gets you.
Logically speaking, I just cant see "tempting God" in that way like when the devil told Jesus to throw Himself off the building because "It is written" "the angels will catch you".. but Jesus said Thou shalt not tempt the Lord Thy God".
Maybe they see it as faith but I see it as presumption.
I would bet that when they do those autopsys and see that 1 out of 5 people have the trichina larvae in them, that there are plenty of Christians among those that do.
I dont think the trichina differenciates between a Jew and a Christian.
And the only reason Ive even said anything on this topic is because I dont want to see any of you harmed. Not because I want to condemn anybody.
Claudia
Some people think if they just continually eat scientifically proven potentially harmful things like pork, but just say a prayer over it, that God will just always miraculously protect them from harm.
Just like those who pick up snakes at their church services pick up snakes to prove they have faith in God. Like they say though, sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear gets you.
Logically speaking, I just cant see "tempting God" in that way like when the devil told Jesus to throw Himself off the building because "It is written" "the angels will catch you".. but Jesus said Thou shalt not tempt the Lord Thy God".
Maybe they see it as faith but I see it as presumption.
I would bet that when they do those autopsys and see that 1 out of 5 people have the trichina larvae in them, that there are plenty of Christians among those that do.
I dont think the trichina differenciates between a Jew and a Christian.
And the only reason Ive even said anything on this topic is because I dont want to see any of you harmed. Not because I want to condemn anybody.
Claudia
SpiritualMadMan
New Member
There is a *big* difference between potentially harmful and definately and repeatedly proven harmful...
One is, IMHO, tempting/testing God by misapplying His Word...
The other is not...
Pork, today in America, if properly cooked is as safe as any of the 'clean' foods.
If fact, I would be more concerned about 'clean' beef. What with all the mad cow going around...
And, even as a vegetarian there is a risk that potentially harmful chemicals are in your 'clean' food.
Even if you go 'organic' there is danger in that, because some studies have indicated that organically grown food has more bateria in it that non-organic. And, of a variety that can kill far more quickly...
So, while the OT dietary laws were extremely important for Israel, in their day, for both health and religious reasons...
The state of the art today makes their need for health reason suspect because they have not been updated to compensate for new risks or the loss of old ones...
So, the *real* question is not about health issues.
But, about religious issues...
Which brings us back to the Law vs Grace issues...
SMM
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
While some here argue that "Stat of the art" negates God's word on eating "rats, cats, raccoon, skunks, bats and snakes" and while those same people turn their nose up at THE CREATOR's statements that these are NOT FOOD -- as He stated in Lev 11... I do not find those arguments to be based at all on "exegesis".
If you are going to give something more than lip service to "sola scriptura" then at some point "scriptura" has to come into the picture along with sound exegesis.
In Christ,
Bob
If you are going to give something more than lip service to "sola scriptura" then at some point "scriptura" has to come into the picture along with sound exegesis.
In Christ,
Bob
SpiritualMadMan
New Member
Get hungry enough, and you might change your mind? 
(I'd have to be really hungry...)
BR on a Religious basis if we are bound by The Law and its dietary section then I agree with you...
I do not agree that we are "required" to keep the dietary laws...
I do agree that some of them make good sense even today, though
From a purely health view point, though, some of the laws would be unneccesary for the (sole) purpose of preserving health...
This is apart from any religious Issues...
And, as I have pointed out, with the changing state of the art new hazards have been created, from which we are not protected even if we were to keep the dietary laws...
SMM
(I'd have to be really hungry...)
BR on a Religious basis if we are bound by The Law and its dietary section then I agree with you...
I do not agree that we are "required" to keep the dietary laws...
I do agree that some of them make good sense even today, though
From a purely health view point, though, some of the laws would be unneccesary for the (sole) purpose of preserving health...
This is apart from any religious Issues...
And, as I have pointed out, with the changing state of the art new hazards have been created, from which we are not protected even if we were to keep the dietary laws...
SMM
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
As I pointed out - that is not remotely exegesis in favor of "snakes, rats, cats, dogs and bats" for dinner instead of beef steak, lamb, chicken and Salmon.
When it came to exegesis I point out that the details in Romans 14 argue against spinning it into an excuse to eat humans or cats and against spinning it into an excuse to abolish the Lev 11 scripture prohibiting the use of rats as "food".
I argue that God is right in Isaiah 66 when he describes future judgement for those eating rats.
I argue in favor of the work of Christ in Mark 7 -- regarding man-made-tradition about unclean bread.
Your argument seems to require that we ignore the inconvenient exegesis of these texts.
In Christ,
Bob
When it came to exegesis I point out that the details in Romans 14 argue against spinning it into an excuse to eat humans or cats and against spinning it into an excuse to abolish the Lev 11 scripture prohibiting the use of rats as "food".
I argue that God is right in Isaiah 66 when he describes future judgement for those eating rats.
I argue in favor of the work of Christ in Mark 7 -- regarding man-made-tradition about unclean bread.
Your argument seems to require that we ignore the inconvenient exegesis of these texts.
In Christ,
Bob
SpiritualMadMan
New Member
Yeah BR,
I know what you think of me...
Therefore... NO Comment
I know what you think of me...
Therefore... NO Comment
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
"What I think of you"???
I gave reference to the Mark 7 problem that your argument has. The Romans 14 problem that your argument has - the Isaiah 66 problem that your argument has...
And "that" is your answer?
What about a little "sola scriptura" coming back into this?
In Christ,
Bob
I gave reference to the Mark 7 problem that your argument has. The Romans 14 problem that your argument has - the Isaiah 66 problem that your argument has...
And "that" is your answer?
What about a little "sola scriptura" coming back into this?
In Christ,
Bob
Snitzelhoff
New Member
Before I get started again, will someone SDA please directly answer (with a yes or no) the questions I have posted no fewer than five times:
1. Was God commanding Peter to sin in Acts 10?
2. Was Peter right in defying God's command in Acts 10?
And, in case you missed them at the beginning, here are those questions again: Was God commanding Peter to sin in Acts 10? Was Peter right in defying that command? Yes or no will do.
I'm beginning to get dizzy from the circles. Let's stick with that the text says, and not what we really want it to say.
Michael
1. Was God commanding Peter to sin in Acts 10?
2. Was Peter right in defying God's command in Acts 10?
I never touched Leviticus 11. I merely pointed out (over and over and over and over and over again) that Romans 14 says "all things." It either means that or it doesn't. You have very staunchly and adamantly insisted that the Bible doesn't mean what it says when it says "all things."
And that's your hermeneutical basis for shoehorning I Corinthians 8 into Romans 14? Please. They're two totally different chapters. One is dealing with foods offered to idols. The other is dealing with eating "all things." Is it really THAT hard to stick to the text at hand, Bob?
I'm sorry; what? I never contradicted I Corinthians 8. I stuck with the text at hand. The text says "all things." Therefore, I say "all things." The text never makes any allusions to I Corinthians 8.
Once again, I'm sticking with the text, which happens to say "all things." That, by its definition, frees us from Leviticus 11.
And you pretend that Romans 14 says "clean meats." Anyway, highlight whatever details you wish from the text. Post verses that have to do with the text at hand and let it speak for itself. Let's see some good exegesis here, Bob.
Likewise. I read the text and it says "all things." You come in and try to shoehorn in passages that have nothing to do with the passage at hand to say it doesn't really mean all things, as though Paul or God were mistaken.
Well, you do kinda keep ignoring that detail about "all things". I know it doesn't fit your doctrine, but still, can we stick with the text here, Bob?
And you keep making the mindless assumption that, just because there's nothing sinful in eating things that are less than appetizing (like trucks or rocks), that I'm actually going to go eat those things. Yes, "all things" means "all things." There's nothing sinful in eating a truck, if you can do it. Doesn't mean I'm gonna go do it.
Well, the text says "all things." You seem to think the text is wrong. Should I listen to you, or to the text?
And, in case you missed them at the beginning, here are those questions again: Was God commanding Peter to sin in Acts 10? Was Peter right in defying that command? Yes or no will do.
I'm beginning to get dizzy from the circles. Let's stick with that the text says, and not what we really want it to say.
Michael
Michael,
NO God was not asking Peter to sin.
In Peter's vision about the unclean meats, he "saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth." In this sheet "were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air." Peter heard God tell him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat" (Acts 10:11-13).
At first, naturally, Peter assumed that the vision meant he should eat unclean animals, and so Peter responded: "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean" (verse 14). The same vision came to Peter THREE TIMES(verse 16).
Many readers, at first glance, assume that God wanted Peter to realize that we are now free to eat any kind of animal flesh we desire. If you look at the context, however, these scriptures show that this is not at all what Peter was understanding he vision to mean.
Even after seeing the vision three times Peter still "wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant" (verse 17). Had he truly thought that God meant to eat the unclean meats then he'd of no longer wondered, doesnt that make sense to you, Michael?
It was later that Peter realized the significance of the this vision. Peter then knew that "God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (verse 28). After recignizing the REAL intention of the vision, Peter baptized the first gentiles God had called into the Church (see verses 45-48).
This entire vision didnt involve foods at all, it concerned people. The Jewish religious leaders at the time of Christ considered gentiles to be unclean, and so God had to use this vision and symbolism to right a common misperception that had affected Peter and other disciples. God was beginning to offer salvation to everyone. Now the Gentiles were being welcomed into the Church.
This did not abolish God's instructions against eating unclean meats, in fact these verses show that, almost 20 years after the death of Christ, Peter had "never eaten anything common or unclean."
Its obvious that Peter didnt think that God had abolished the food laws or that the death of Christ had made them obsolete. We can clearly see from Peter's own words that he continued faithfully to follow the laws of clean and unclean meats.
We also find no evidence at all that after this vision, Peter began eating unclean meats.
In fact, it was the realization that this puzzling vision could NOT be meant to annul God's instructions, that made him "think about the vision" until he understood its true meaning (verses 17-19, 28)-that the gentiles could now join the Church, as well (verses 34-35, 45-48).
Its really simple if you dont try to read too much into it.
Claudia
[ May 11, 2006, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Claudia_T ]
NO God was not asking Peter to sin.
In Peter's vision about the unclean meats, he "saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth." In this sheet "were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air." Peter heard God tell him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat" (Acts 10:11-13).
At first, naturally, Peter assumed that the vision meant he should eat unclean animals, and so Peter responded: "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean" (verse 14). The same vision came to Peter THREE TIMES(verse 16).
Many readers, at first glance, assume that God wanted Peter to realize that we are now free to eat any kind of animal flesh we desire. If you look at the context, however, these scriptures show that this is not at all what Peter was understanding he vision to mean.
Even after seeing the vision three times Peter still "wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant" (verse 17). Had he truly thought that God meant to eat the unclean meats then he'd of no longer wondered, doesnt that make sense to you, Michael?
It was later that Peter realized the significance of the this vision. Peter then knew that "God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (verse 28). After recignizing the REAL intention of the vision, Peter baptized the first gentiles God had called into the Church (see verses 45-48).
This entire vision didnt involve foods at all, it concerned people. The Jewish religious leaders at the time of Christ considered gentiles to be unclean, and so God had to use this vision and symbolism to right a common misperception that had affected Peter and other disciples. God was beginning to offer salvation to everyone. Now the Gentiles were being welcomed into the Church.
This did not abolish God's instructions against eating unclean meats, in fact these verses show that, almost 20 years after the death of Christ, Peter had "never eaten anything common or unclean."
Its obvious that Peter didnt think that God had abolished the food laws or that the death of Christ had made them obsolete. We can clearly see from Peter's own words that he continued faithfully to follow the laws of clean and unclean meats.
We also find no evidence at all that after this vision, Peter began eating unclean meats.
In fact, it was the realization that this puzzling vision could NOT be meant to annul God's instructions, that made him "think about the vision" until he understood its true meaning (verses 17-19, 28)-that the gentiles could now join the Church, as well (verses 34-35, 45-48).
Its really simple if you dont try to read too much into it.
Claudia
[ May 11, 2006, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Claudia_T ]
No they are not about health! Why, for one thing, are there no unclean plants? There are plants that are for more poisonous then animals, yet none are designated as unclean. None "defile" you for eating or touching them when dead. Only animals, who move around, and have specific behaviors often linked to human behavior, like to call a person a sheep or a pig carries two opposite moral connotations. "Defile" doesn't mean to be sick or die earlier from something anyway, and neither do people particularly die early from eating unclean meat. The oldest people alive are not kosher.
You basically covered the spiritual meaning of clean and unclean in dealing with Peter and the vision. What did unclean animals represent? Unclean gentiles. Only God was showing him that a person is not automatcally unclean by being Gentile, for God was beginning to cleanse them. All of this is spiritual. Else, I should use Bob's hyperbole and argue about munching on Gentile sandwiches.
So yea, the vision is really a bout people and not meat But the fact that God would even make a gesture about eating unclean meats to illustrate formerly unclean people does help set the principle, that "clean" and "unclean" is spiritual, and not about any "health" diet.
("Desiring to be teachers of the Law...")
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
No God was not commanding Peter to violate HIS OWN Law and Peter NEVER DID!
As has already been shown Peter clearly INTERPRETS that dream TWO TIMES telling BOTH the Gentiles and the Jews that although HE NEVER ate any rats (sorry about that Michael) HE DID get the point about GENTILES being converted.
This could not "BE" any more obvious in his TWICE repeated interpretation. EACH time he clearly states that HE DID NOT eat any mice rats or kittens. (Sorry about that Michael - he did not munch on them so this is not going to work out as you might have intended).
#2. Peter DID not respond in the form "I am really sorry to have to defy you Lord - I Love you and I really wish I could comply with this contradiction - but I can't get past that WORD OF GOD thing in Lev 11. Please help me stop doing that"
#3. GOD did not respond in the form "PETER I have asked you 3 times to obey and you keep boldly asserting that you are STILL obeying my Lev 11 LAW. STOP OBEYING Me right NOW Peter or we can not continue this point about Gentiles!"
Peter was RIGHT to OBEY God's Word in Lev 11 when it came to those rats, snakes and kittens and NOT eating them. He was RIGHT to continually point out that HE WAS being FAITHFUL to that command EACH time he was challenged. He was RIGHT to GET the point about this lesson pointing to Gentiles!
This could not "Be" any more obvious - the text EXPLICITLY points to the creeping crawling snakes AND to the unclean rats kittens and bats.
Why in the world do you find it so convenient to avoid the details in the text?
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
You avoid the fact that "human bodies are things, rocks are things, cars are things, rats cats bats are things". You seem to IMAGINE that the only THINGS on the planet are "your favorite dish".
Romans 14 USES the SAME context as 1Cor 8 when speaking to the SAME subject!
I am sorry but it can not be twisted to endorse cannibalism as you had hoped in your "ANYTHING that is a THING goes here".
Why not just respond to the point instead of dancing around it?
Sorry Michael - no eating rocks. No eating humans, no eating trucks!
-- (Why is it you keep on that "WHATEVER IS A THING is approved as FOOD" failure?)
Exegesis - THE SAME author, the SAME topic, the SAME issue with "Vegetables vs MEAT".
Get it??
Sorry - but your wild attempts at cannibalism, rock-eating, snake-eating, kitten-munching can not be eisegeted into this text as easily as you suppose because at some point EXEGESIS has to have some meaning to the reader. And at that point your argument flounders.
See?
FINALLY! You have said something that is actually true.! Way to Go.
What you have NOT been able to grasp is that EXEGESIS DEMANDS that full explanation is gained by FIRST seeing the use of the SAME issues by the SAME author to the SAME audience!
Your efforts to eisegete cannibalism and eating rocks, kittens and "anyTHING that is a THING" fails to even begin to approach "exegesis" here.
Further - your claim that EXEGESIS will NOT tolerate looking at the full meaning for a given subject as it is addressed by the SAME author, using the SAME terms, to the SAME audience is horribly misinformed on that point!
Exegesis not only "allows it" -- it DEMANDS it!
Paul gives NO background AT ALL about the ISSUE that only gives us the option of "VEGETABLES ONLY" vs "MEAT" in Romans 14. NONE whatsoever! Certainly NOTHING in Judaism argued for this "vegetables only vs MEAT" discussion!!
To FIND it we must look to the FULL content of HIS writing to the NT churches to see if HE provides more detail to that SAME first century audience using the SAME TERMS and showing the issue that would argue for "NO MEAT" - for "VEGETABLES ONLY".
Obviously.
Try embracing this idea of "sola scriptura" with the associate attention to "actual exegesis".
I think you will like it - and your arguments will avoid the blunders that you have put forward here.
(Having to repeat these very basic points is getting somewhat old -- either address the point or show how exegesis demands that we ignore scripture in the way you are doing it.)
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
1Cor 8 is dealing with the "controversy" over food offerred to idols. An issue seen CLEARLY since Acts 15 FORBIDS IT! This could not BE more obvious - as a BIG DEAL for the NT church.
It is EASY to see how this results in a "vegetables ONLY" group vs a "meat eating group". Where the "Vegetables only" guys are GENTILES who have come out of idolatry and STILL view pagan idols AS competing DEITies to God!
I can't believe this point must continually be explained for your benefit.!!
In your statement above you argue "LETs IGNORE exegesis and the issue of VEGETABLES-only VS MEAT that we KNOW Paul had to deal with and we KNOW as such a large issue for the NT church. LETS PRETEND instead that there is ALSO an issue about eating ALL THINGS - ANYTHING that is a THING - Humans, rats, snakes, rocks, buildings -- AS LONG as it is a THING it could be eaten and
yet SOME would just "EAT VEGETABLES" instead of all those human bodies, rats, and buildings AS WELL as vegetables".
Your argument for "ANYTHING that is a THING" is totally silly as you insist that we ignore exegesis and context for the "Vegetables ONLY vs MEAT" debate that is CLEARLY in the NT church!!
We seem to have found agreement.
EXEGESIS not only ALLOWS looking at the SAME subject and SAME terms used by the SAME author to the SAME NT church audience - it DEMANDS it!
Why is this simple concept so difficult for you? Is it that you are so married to this "snippet-in-isolation" argument that insists "ANYTHING that is a THING" (human bodies, rocks, rats, buildings" MUST be the BIG issue in the NT church driving some to "EAT vegetables only" INSTEAD??
Your whole argument fails even before it gets started. Why not go for exegesis instead?
Here then is your "bend-and-twise" of both text and logic! You WANT to "get at Lev 11" with a "MEAT vs Vegetables" issue in Rom 14 (or did you really want this to be about BUILDINGS vs VEGETABLES??!!!).
But in Lev 11 there IS NO "meat vs vegetables" doctrine AT ALL!! So the trick you use is to ISOLATE and then PRETEND. ISOLATE Romans 14 from all of Paul's statements on "MEAT vs VEGETABLES" then "PRETEND" that there was a "MEAT VS Vegetables" position in Lev 11 that is now being abolished/revoked in Lev 11.
How odd.
And the answer to that is??
There you go "pretending" that Paul is actually arguing FOR "eating THINGS like trucks and rocks and not VEGETABLES only" when in fact He is arguing SPECIFICALLY about Vegetables only vs eating meats in Romans 14.
AT BEST (yielding to your own buildings-trucks as THINGS arguments) this becomes "Eating VEGETABLES ONLY vs ALSO eating trucks and buildings with those "Vegetables")
Your argument is horribly flawed here.
In Christ,
Bob