PDA

View Full Version : Joel Osteen on respecting God in our diets



valleybldr
May 12th 2008, 11:46 AM
It is not my desire to debate the overall merits of America's number one religious TV program. I do, however, find the following clip fascinating since the teaching is done before a rather large audience in an evangelical mega-church and I assume it was broadcast nationally. I find many Protestants open to God's right and purposes in deeming some meats clean and others unfit. IMO, Joel does a good explaining the practical aspect of this discussion.

todd

http://www.mydadsrestaurant.com/josteencleanfoodbig.wmv (http://www.mydadsrestaurant.com/josteencleanfoodbig.wmv)

Grace40
May 12th 2008, 01:40 PM
I'm not a big Joel Osteen fan, but I have to say I do agree with him on this. I went years without eating pork because the Lord convicted me that it was wrong.

Matt14
May 12th 2008, 02:01 PM
It is not my desire to debate the overall merits of America's number one religious TV program. I do, however, find the following clip fascinating since the teaching is done before a rather large audience in an evangelical mega-church and I assume it was broadcast nationally. I find many Protestants open to God's right and purposes in deeming some meats clean and others unfit. IMO, Joel does a good explaining the practical aspect of this discussion.

todd

http://www.mydadsrestaurant.com/josteencleanfoodbig.wmv (http://www.mydadsrestaurant.com/josteencleanfoodbig.wmv)
I would take God's word over Osteen's any day:

1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving;
1Ti 4:5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Rom 14:14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Act 10:9 The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour.
Act 10:10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance
Act 10:11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth.
Act 10:12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air.
Act 10:13 And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."
Act 10:14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean."
Act 10:15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common."

-

diffangle
May 12th 2008, 02:52 PM
I would take God's word over Osteen's any day:

1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving;
1Ti 4:5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Since us humans are creatures of God, is it okay for us to eat each other? Obviously there are some creatures that YHWH doesn't consider to be food. Paul was dealing with gnosticism... looking at verse 1 you can see that Paul is not talking about our Creators Word/Instructions...

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

His Word is not a doctrine of devils... never was... never will be.



Rom 14:14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

This isn't the condoning of eating animals that our Creator doesn't consider food. Again, Paul was dealing with gnostics who teach that asceticism(like abstaining from all meats) is what makes one holy.




Act 10:9 The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour.
Act 10:10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance
Act 10:11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth.
Act 10:12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air.
Act 10:13 And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."
Act 10:14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean."
Act 10:15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common."

This has nothing to do with food as verses 19 and 20 reveals what the vision was about...

While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

and then Peter reiterates what his vision meant in verse 28...

And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

It wasn't about food, it was about a law the Jews(not YHWH's law) had to not keep company with gentiles... YHWH set him straight on the wrongness of that man-made law.

Matt14
May 12th 2008, 03:02 PM
If it's about the Law, perhaps this one will better suit you:

Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.
Gal 5:2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
Gal 5:3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
Gal 5:4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

If you choose to be bound by the Law of Moses, that is your choice. That's all I have to say on this matter.

-

ProjectPeter
May 12th 2008, 03:16 PM
Colossians 2:20 ¶If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!"
22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using) -- in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

HisLeast
May 12th 2008, 03:17 PM
Posts 4 & 5 of this thread illustrate beautifully what I struggle with HOURLY in my walk.

Damned if one does, and damned if one doesn't.

diffangle
May 12th 2008, 03:18 PM
If it's about the Law, perhaps this one will better suit you:

Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.
Gal 5:2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
Gal 5:3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
Gal 5:4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

If you choose to be bound by the Law of Moses, that is your choice. That's all I have to say on this matter.

-
Paul was addressing those who taught that one can only be justified/saved by ritual conversion/circumcision... the Law has never been what saves/justifies us... it's always been about circumcision of the heart (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%2010:16&version=9;), we should want to obey His Instructions out of love for Him... not out of obligation.

Matt14
May 12th 2008, 03:22 PM
Paul was addressing those who taught that one can only be justified/saved by ritual conversion/circumcision... the Law has never been what saves/justifies us... it's always been about circumcision of the heart (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%2010:16&version=9;), we should want to obey His Instructions out of love for Him... not out of obligation.
If you keep one, you must keep them all. Adherence to the food laws of the Old Law is unnecessary and adverse to the sacrifice of Christ. If Christ took it away from you, why would you want it back?

Rom 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

-

Matt14
May 12th 2008, 03:23 PM
Posts 4 & 5 of this thread illustrate beautifully what I struggle with HOURLY in my walk.

Damned if one does, and damned if one doesn't.

The Bible is very clear on this matter. You do not have to be in doubt. :)

-

ProjectPeter
May 12th 2008, 03:26 PM
Since us humans are creatures of God, is it okay for us to eat each other? Obviously there are some creatures that YHWH doesn't consider to be food. Honestly... this I look at and marvel. I understand folks believe what they believe but when this is an example... it just seems goofy.

There is a clear distinction made Scripturally of a critter and it being food as opposed to eating humans.

Genesis 9:3 "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.
4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
5 "And surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man.
6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.

So while I know that folks believe unclean animals aren't what this is speaking of... that isn't my point right now. The "not eat humans" as if that was a "creature" one would count as food thus you've made some grand point... it isn't that grand really.

Semi-tortured
May 12th 2008, 03:39 PM
Posts 4 & 5 of this thread illustrate beautifully what I struggle with HOURLY in my walk.

Damned if one does, and damned if one doesn't.

Amen, brother. Hourly struggles FTL.

On one hand you have most Christians that believe it's OK to eat pork (which doesn't make it right obviously). Also, the scripture supporting the eating of pork seems to be more convincing to me than the scripture used prohibiting it. I would have no problem giving up pork. I probably eat pig 20-25 times per year counting ham. Take away ham and I maybe eat it 5 times per year. But I feel no personal conviction except when people tell me it's wrong.

Brother Mark
May 12th 2008, 03:45 PM
Posts 4 & 5 of this thread illustrate beautifully what I struggle with HOURLY in my walk.

Damned if one does, and damned if one doesn't.

There's only two laws brother, love God and love man. Trust in the Lord and follow him with all your heart.

diffangle
May 12th 2008, 03:47 PM
[/color][/size]Honestly... this I look at and marvel. I understand folks believe what they believe but when this is an example... it just seems goofy.

There is a clear distinction made Scripturally of a critter and it being food as opposed to eating humans.

It's not that goofy, here's the Strong's def of the word "creatures" used in that verse...

ktisma (Strong's G2938) meaning...
1) thing founded
2) created thing

We are created things so we're included in that.



Genesis 9:3 "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.
4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
5 "And surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man.
6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.

So while I know that folks believe unclean animals aren't what this is speaking of... that isn't my point right now. The "not eat humans" as if that was a "creature" one would count as food thus you've made some grand point... it isn't that grand really.

Why does He deem certain animals as clean and unclean after Gen 9? The point of asking that question when referencing 1 Tim 4 is that obviously "every creature" isn't really addressing "every creature" or else humans would be included in that. Paul says in verse 1 that he is addressing a doctrine of devils... do you honestly believe that YHWH's instructions are a doctrine of devils? Also, in verse 3 he says that they are teaching abstaining from all meat and marriage... those are purely gnostic practices/asceticism when done out of trying to be holy/justified... like Catholic priests not marrying and their(the Catholics) practice of abstaining from meat.

Brother Mark
May 12th 2008, 03:52 PM
I would take God's word over Osteen's any day:

Amen! When the food laws were given, God spoke of being holy.

Lev 11:44-47
44 'For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean 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 you shall be holy for I am holy.'"

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.
NASB

Yet, in the NT nowhere is being holy associated with food. If we are to follow the food laws, then they are to be about holiness. What then are they teaching?

Peter uses this reference to teach us about what we eat with our minds.

1 Peter 1:13-16

13 Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, 15 but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; 16 because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."
NASU

We are to take every thought captive and not eat the unclean thoughts of the enemy. Then we can be holy as God is holy. Sin starts in the mind and heart. When we think it and receive it into our heart, then it will come out and defile us.

Matt 15:18-20
18 "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. 19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20 "These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man."
NASB

Let us then think only on things that are pure and avoid eating the unclean food of bitterness, fornication, etc that will defile us. Then we can be holy as he is holy.

HisLeast
May 12th 2008, 03:56 PM
The Bible is very clear on this matter. You do not have to be in doubt. :)

There are two absolutely conflicting points of view here though. Is it really so clear?

VerticalReality
May 12th 2008, 03:58 PM
Amen! When the food laws were given, God spoke of being holy.

Lev 11:44-47
44 'For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean 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 you shall be holy for I am holy.'"

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.
NASB

Yet, in the NT nowhere is being holy associated with food. If we are to follow the food laws, then they are to be about holiness. What then are they teaching?

Peter uses this reference to teach us about what we eat with our minds.

1 Peter 1:13-16

13 Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, 15 but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; 16 because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."
NASU

We are to take every thought captive and not eat the unclean thoughts of the enemy. Then we can be holy as God is holy. Sin starts in the mind and heart. When we think it and receive it into our heart, then it will come out and defile us.

Matt 15:18-20
18 "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. 19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20 "These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man."
NASB

Let us then think only on things that are pure and avoid eating the unclean food of bitterness, fornication, etc that will defile us. Then we can be holy as he is holy.

I just love when folks see past the surface and those spiritual eyes latch onto the meat (no pun intended :lol:) of the issue!

ProjectPeter
May 12th 2008, 03:59 PM
It's not that goofy, here's the Strong's def of the word "creatures" used in that verse...

ktisma (Strong's G2938) meaning...
1) thing founded
2) created thing

We are created things so we're included in that.And honestly... the only way that a person could have missed my point was to simply ignore the point. No righteous person would ever even consider what God said there to include mankind. Creature is not used to describe man... come on now. :rolleyes:


Example...

Genesis 1:21 And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Notice the wording?

Now look later... because no matter how you want to use Strong's to try and make this point... it ain't going to fly.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."


Notice... creatures first... man next. So if creatures that moves is also man... then God would have made man on that fifth day along with Wally the Buffalo.



Why does He deem certain animals as clean and unclean after Gen 9? The point of asking that question when referencing 1 Tim 4 is that obviously "every creature" isn't really addressing "every creature" or else humans would be included in that. Paul says in verse 1 that he is addressing a doctrine of devils... do you honestly believe that YHWH's instructions are a doctrine of devils? Also, in verse 3 he says that they are teaching abstaining from all meat and marriage... those are purely gnostic practices/asceticism when done out of trying to be holy/justified... like Catholic priests not marrying and their(the Catholics) practice of abstaining from meat.See above because again... if you count man as a creature deemed like the pig as unclean to eat... then you are going to be all skeewaddy.

Matt14
May 12th 2008, 04:14 PM
There are two absolutely conflicting points of view here though. Is it really so clear?
Yes, it is clear. Follow the logic:

1. Are food laws part of the Law of Moses? Yes, they are.

2. Are we bound to the Law of Moses as Christians? No, we are not (Romans 7:6-7; Col. 2:14).

Jesus set you free from the Law. Why do you want to be bound by food laws, which are part of the shadow, when the substance is in Christ?

It really is simple.

-

Brother Mark
May 12th 2008, 04:16 PM
There are two absolutely conflicting points of view here though. Is it really so clear?

Yes. What Matt wrote about about the Law of Moses is accurate. And they are simply a shadow of things that was unveiled for us. We live today in the Spirit of the Law more so than by the letter of the Law.

diffangle
May 12th 2008, 04:32 PM
No righteous person would ever even consider what God said there to include mankind. Creature is not used to describe man... come on now. :rolleyes:


I know it doesn't include mankind, but imo it doesn't include the animals that YHWH deems as not food/unclean either. I don't believe He gave us the food instructions to punish us, I believe He gave them to His people b/c He loves us. Science today is even backing up what YHWH told His people long long ago when it comes to what is healthy to eat and what isn't. There is a reason for His instructions, I believe them to be out of His love... not to be a "doctrine of devils". Do you think His instructions is a doctrine of devils?

Mark 16:18 says we can drink poison and it not hurt us... when was the last time you drank a hemlock smoothie? Just b/c we can eat/drink anything doesn't necessarily make it wise to do so.

Brother Mark
May 12th 2008, 04:35 PM
I know it doesn't include mankind, but imo it doesn't include the animals that YHWH deems as not food/unclean either. I don't believe He gave us the food instructions to punish us, I believe He gave them to His people b/c He loves us. Science today is even backing up what YHWH told His people long long ago when it comes to what is healthy to eat and what isn't. There is a reason for His instructions, I believe them to be out of His love... not to be a "doctrine of devils". Do you think His instructions is a doctrine of devils?

Mark 16:18 says we can drink poison and it not hurt us... when was the last time you drank a hemlock smoothie? Just b/c we can eat/drink anything doesn't necessarily make it wise to do so.

While health may have been a reason for God giving those laws, he states THE reason for them in scripture. They are about being holy. The food laws are all about holiness. So, where in the NT does God mention food and holiness together the way he did in the NT? Why the difference?

diffangle
May 12th 2008, 04:47 PM
While health may have been a reason for God giving those laws, he states THE reason for them in scripture. They are about being holy. The food laws are all about holiness. So, where in the NT does God mention food and holiness together the way he did in the NT? Why the difference?
Exd 15:26 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&c=15&v=26&t=KJV#26)And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of YHWH thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I [am] YHWH that healeth thee.

Rev 22:14 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=22&v=14&t=KJV#14)Blessed [are] they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Matt14
May 12th 2008, 04:47 PM
While health may have been a reason for God giving those laws, he states THE reason for them in scripture. They are about being holy. The food laws are all about holiness. So, where in the NT does God mention food and holiness together the way he did in the NT? Why the difference?
Yes, I agree. God says the reason for the Law in totality was:

Gal 3:19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.
Gal 3:20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
Gal 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.
Gal 3:22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

The food laws, like the rest of the Law of Moses, was part of the "tutoring" of man (specifically the Jews). But know that faith has been revealed, it is no longer necessary.

Notice in v. 19, "it was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come.

In my understanding, if we adhere to food laws of the OT, we are in effect neglecting that truth that the Seed (Christ) has come! Thus Paul's admonition in Gal. 5:4.

-

Brother Mark
May 12th 2008, 04:48 PM
Exd 15:26 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&c=15&v=26&t=KJV#26)And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of YHWH thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I [am] YHWH that healeth thee.

Rev 22:14 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=22&v=14&t=KJV#14)Blessed [are] they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Where in the NT does God tie eating and holiness together as he did in the OT? What kind of eating does God tie holiness to in the NT?

valleybldr
May 12th 2008, 04:49 PM
While health may have been a reason for God giving those laws, he states THE reason for them in scripture. They are about being holy. The food laws are all about holiness. So, where in the NT does God mention food and holiness together the way he did in the NT? Why the difference?
Scripture never states that unless something is explicitedly restated in the New Testament it's irrelevant for Believers. That's a man-made law that's as irrelevant as all the out of context Pauline passages used to “prove“ the same points. todd

Matt14
May 12th 2008, 04:50 PM
Exd 15:26 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&c=15&v=26&t=KJV#26)And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of YHWH thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I [am] YHWH that healeth thee.

Rev 22:14 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=22&v=14&t=KJV#14)Blessed [are] they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
This is dangerous, right here. Rev. 22:14 is referring to eternal life (the tree of life). You are using Rev. 22:14 in a manner that conflicts with other NT passages. You are connecting salvation with the keeping of the Law of Moses!

Do you see where you are crossing the Gal. 5:4 line?

-

Brother Mark
May 12th 2008, 04:50 PM
The food laws, like the rest of the Law of Moses, was part of the "tutoring" of man (specifically the Jews). But know that faith has been revealed, it is no longer necessary.

The shadows can still teach us, but it is the spirit of the law we live in now and no longer the letter. We are freed from the letter because we died to the law that we might live to Christ.

Many of us confuse the law of Moses with the Laws of God. The letter of the Law of Moses is not eternal. Though the spirit of the law reveals eternal things!

Matt14
May 12th 2008, 04:52 PM
Scripture never states that unless something is explicitedly restated in the New Testament it's irrelevant for Believers. That's a man-made law that's as irrelevant as all the out of context Pauline passages used to “prove“ the same points. todd
This is what the NT says about obedience to the Law of Moses:

Rom 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

Col 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Do you believe Christ has freed us from the Law, or not?

-

Matt14
May 12th 2008, 04:53 PM
The shadows can still teach us, but it is the spirit of the law we live in now and no longer the letter. We are freed from the letter because we died to the law that we might live to Christ.

Many of us confuse the law of Moses with the Laws of God. The letter of the Law of Moses is not eternal. Though the spirit of the law reveals eternal things!

Amen, Mark.

Rom 15:4 For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.


-

Brother Mark
May 12th 2008, 04:56 PM
Scripture never states that unless something is explicitedly restated in the New Testament it's irrelevant for Believers. That's a man-made law that's as irrelevant as all the out of context Pauline passages used to “prove“ the same points. todd

But the NT does teach us about eating Todd. There are verses that speak of what we are to eat and not eat. There are verses that speak of holiness in relation to what we eat and don't eat in scripture. It is the seeing the spirit of the law where real power comes in to live for Christ.

What was the pattern of Christ? You have heard it said "an eye for an eye"... That was a direct quote from the Torah. Then Jesus went to expound "But I say unto you... turn the other cheek". Now what was he getting at concerning the Torah in that verse? The Torah taught "eye for an eye" but Jesus taught something beyond that. There is that which goes beyond the letter and that is most important.

ProjectPeter
May 12th 2008, 04:58 PM
I know it doesn't include mankind, but imo it doesn't include the animals that YHWH deems as not food/unclean either. I don't believe He gave us the food instructions to punish us, I believe He gave them to His people b/c He loves us. Science today is even backing up what YHWH told His people long long ago when it comes to what is healthy to eat and what isn't. There is a reason for His instructions, I believe them to be out of His love... not to be a "doctrine of devils". Do you think His instructions is a doctrine of devils?

Mark 16:18 says we can drink poison and it not hurt us... when was the last time you drank a hemlock smoothie? Just b/c we can eat/drink anything doesn't necessarily make it wise to do so.Not doctrines of devils at all and question is up there with that eating man comment truth be told. :rolleyes:

But science today tells us why it was bad back in that day... and even say 40 years ago it wasn't the greatest of things to eat if you were buying from Joe Schmucky down at the little farm. But for a while now... pigs aren't eating all the junk that Joel talked about in this little bit of a sermon. The stuff you buy in the store now is grain fed and pumped full of antibiotics (and who knows what else) just as the cows, chickens, and whatever else they feed you from farm raised food... even the fish.

But nevertheless... point is the same. One can not believe God wasn't talking about clean and unclean animals I figure all they want... one still have to contend with what it says.

Genesis 9:3 "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.
4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Notice God made no such exception at all nor was it recorded as such. Add to that fact... You can read those ten laws God penned Himself... has no mention of this food or that food etc. He didn't find it nearly as important as some folks did and or do today still. ;) As Paul said... give thanks and eat.

Don't sweat the small stuff. Food is food and after you eat that food... out it comes a while later. Tis how it works and what you put in your mouth doesn't defile you. There's sure enough a lesson there.

diffangle
May 12th 2008, 05:03 PM
Genesis 9:3 "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.
4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Notice God made no such exception at all nor was it recorded as such.

Why the food instructions that were given after Gen 9?

Brother Mark
May 12th 2008, 05:04 PM
Why the food instructions that were given after Gen 9?

Two reasons. 1. To teach us about spiritually eating and being holy through the shadows. That is taught a lot in the NT. I'll let PP give reason 2.

valleybldr
May 12th 2008, 05:21 PM
Do you believe Christ has freed us from the Law, or not?

- I believe I am free from the Law's penalty of death through our Messiah's blood. I guess I'm free to disobey God too but I don't think that's the freedom God (nor Paul) intends for me. todd

ProjectPeter
May 12th 2008, 05:24 PM
Why the food instructions that were given after Gen 9?
Moses couldn't stand porkchops, shrimp or lobster... therefore... ;)

I figure Moses knew the danger of eating pork back in the day... couldn't store it and the best that could be done was to cure it... needed a lot of salt for that though. Remember the "r" rule about shellfish and eating them during the months with "r's" in the word. Didn't kill many but now and again it would and it could certainly make one sick if they got a bad batch of something.

But overall... it boils down to this. It was because of their disobedience.

Ezekiel 20:20 `And sanctify My sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the LORD your God.´
21 "But the children rebelled against Me; they did not walk in My statutes, nor were they careful to observe My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live; they profaned My sabbaths. So I resolved to pour out My wrath on them, to accomplish My anger against them in the wilderness.
22 "But I withdrew My hand and acted for the sake of My name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out.
23 "Also I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them among the lands,
24 because they had not observed My ordinances, but had rejected My statutes, and had profaned My sabbaths, and their eyes were on the idols of their fathers.
25 "And I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live;
26 and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their first-born to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the LORD."´

ProjectPeter
May 12th 2008, 05:26 PM
I believe I am free from the Law's penalty of death through our Messiah's blood. I guess I'm free to disobey God too but I don't think that's the freedom God (nor Paul) intends for me. todd
You aren't just free of the penalty... you are free from the bondage of the Law of Moses and things such as circumcision etc. Scripture isn't any more clear on that point. We can name off tons of medical reasons why this stuff is good for you and wouldn't be wrong. But nevertheless... the church isn't bound by those 613 laws because those laws couldn't save you... never could.

Matt14
May 12th 2008, 05:31 PM
I believe I am free from the Law's penalty of death through our Messiah's blood. I guess I'm free to disobey God too but I don't think that's the freedom God (nor Paul) intends for me. todd
What do these scriptures say?

Rom 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

Col 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Do you feel you have to obey the Law of Moses?

-

valleybldr
May 12th 2008, 05:32 PM
You aren't just free of the penalty... you are free from the bondage of the Law of Moses and things such as circumcision etc. Scripture isn't any more clear on that point. We can name off tons of medical reasons why this stuff is good for you and wouldn't be wrong. But nevertheless... the church isn't bound by those 613 laws because those laws couldn't save you... never could.
I don't remember saying I was "bound" by "613 laws." That which applies...applies and that which does not...does not. We just differ on where to draw the line and/or how to apply the principles found therein. todd

valleybldr
May 12th 2008, 06:00 PM
Moses couldn't stand porkchops, shrimp or lobster... therefore... ;)

I figure Moses knew the danger of eating pork back in the day... couldn't store it and the best that could be done was to cure it... needed a lot of salt for that though. Remember the "r" rule about shellfish and eating them during the months with "r's" in the word. Didn't kill many but now and again it would and it could certainly make one sick if they got a bad batch of something.

But overall... it boils down to this. It was because of their disobedience.

Ezekiel 20:20 `And sanctify My sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the LORD your God.´
21 "But the children rebelled against Me; they did not walk in My statutes, nor were they careful to observe My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live; they profaned My sabbaths. So I resolved to pour out My wrath on them, to accomplish My anger against them in the wilderness.
22 "But I withdrew My hand and acted for the sake of My name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out.
23 "Also I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them among the lands,
24 because they had not observed My ordinances, but had rejected My statutes, and had profaned My sabbaths, and their eyes were on the idols of their fathers.
25 "And I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live;
26 and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their first-born to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the LORD."´ I have already pointed out that you are not reading this passage carefully and your interpetation sharply contradicts what was said by the Lord concerning Torah when it was was given. todd

ProjectPeter
May 12th 2008, 08:28 PM
I don't remember saying I was "bound" by "613 laws." That which applies...applies and that which does not...does not. We just differ on where to draw the line and/or how to apply the principles found therein. toddDoes one need to follow these laws in order to be saved?

ProjectPeter
May 12th 2008, 08:29 PM
I have already pointed out that you are not reading this passage carefully and your interpetation sharply contradicts what was said by the Lord concerning Torah when it was was given. todd
I do vaguely remember you saying something in another thread and I do remember vaguely you being incorrect. ;)

valleybldr
May 12th 2008, 09:32 PM
I do vaguely remember you saying something in another thread and I do remember vaguely you being incorrect. ;) It's all right there in the passage. todd

ProjectPeter
May 12th 2008, 09:35 PM
It's all right there in the passage. todd
Um... alrighty then I suppose.

valleybldr
May 12th 2008, 09:35 PM
Does one need to follow these laws in order to be saved? I don't answer such questions. I'm interested in learning, living and teaching God's ways, not trying to figure out who is and who's not "saved." It's not my job but it seems plenty here are willing to take it. todd

valleybldr
May 12th 2008, 09:44 PM
Um... alrighty then I suppose.

Eze 20:25 "Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and ordinances whereby they should not live; :26 and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they set apart all that openeth the womb, that I might destroy them, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD."

Translations differ (probably, in part, because it appears a direct contradiction of an earlier verse) but "context, context, context." The NIV and a number of other translations word it "I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by;" It's not God's law that is "not good" but the system of statutes they created for themselves. See verse 18.

todd

HisGrace
May 12th 2008, 09:58 PM
Deut 14:8 Also the swine is unclean for you, because it has cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud; you shall not eat their flesh or touch their dead carcasses.

I have also heard that it says in the Bible that we are not suppoed to eat shell fish, but can't find scripture to support this.

valleybldr
May 12th 2008, 10:08 PM
Deut 14:8 Also the swine is unclean for you, because it has cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud; you shall not eat their flesh or touch their dead carcasses.

I have also heard that it says in the Bible that we are not suppoed to eat shell fish, but can't find scripture to support this. Lev. 11:10 "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters, they [shall be] an abomination unto you:"

Athanasius
May 12th 2008, 10:17 PM
Seems to fit a long quite nicely with the prosperity Gospel.

diffangle
May 12th 2008, 10:24 PM
But science today tells us why it was bad back in that day... and even say 40 years ago it wasn't the greatest of things to eat if you were buying from Joe Schmucky down at the little farm. But for a while now... pigs aren't eating all the junk that Joel talked about in this little bit of a sermon. The stuff you buy in the store now is grain fed and pumped full of antibiotics (and who knows what else) just as the cows, chickens, and whatever else they feed you from farm raised food... even the fish.

Pigs today eat feces... and do you think that the antibiotics and steroids they pump those creatures with isn't toxic or are those things actually considered food? Pigs don't have sweat glands, and as Joel points out, they have a very fast digestive system so you are eating alot of built up toxins(feces, parasites, antibiotics, steroids, pesticides from their feed). Also, when it comes to shellfish and fish without scales, it's still unsafe... why else do dr's tell pregnant women to stay away from those things? They are bigger fish that store up more toxins like mercury in their systems. Here's a good article that gets into why it's the unclean meats are still toxic to our systems...

http://www.lcg.org/cgi-bin/lcg/studytopics/lcg-st.cgi?category=Christianity1&item=1116549049



But nevertheless... point is the same. One can not believe God wasn't talking about clean and unclean animals I figure all they want... one still have to contend with what it says.

Genesis 9:3 "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.
4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Notice God made no such exception at all nor was it recorded as such.
Why did He make a distinction between clean and unclean animals when he was loading the ark?

Matt14
May 12th 2008, 11:47 PM
Why did He make a distinction between clean and unclean animals when he was loading the ark?

For sacrificial purposes, not for food. :)

-

diffangle
May 13th 2008, 12:45 AM
For sacrificial purposes, not for food. :)

-
Why wouldn't YHWH accept all His creatures for sacrifice if "every creature is good" and not to be refused? It makes me wonder if any animals went extinct as a result of Noah eating one or both of the two unclean animals he took on the ark.

ProjectPeter
May 13th 2008, 12:51 AM
Eze 20:25 "Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and ordinances whereby they should not live; :26 and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they set apart all that openeth the womb, that I might destroy them, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD."

Translations differ (probably, in part, because it appears a direct contradiction of an earlier verse) but "context, context, context." The NIV and a number of other translations word it "I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by;" It's not God's law that is "not good" but the system of statutes they created for themselves. See verse 18.

todd
Um... do the ever popular Hebrew word study... there is no "over to" in there. I gave them also... I also gave them... that is the proper translation. That the NIV got some doctrinal tweaking into their translation... not a surprise. To think God gave them those ordinances and whatnot that they actually couldn't keep... that does kick a few doctrinal sacred cows slap in the kisser.

ProjectPeter
May 13th 2008, 12:58 AM
Pigs today eat feces... and do you think that the antibiotics and steroids they pump those creatures with isn't toxic or are those things actually considered food? Pigs don't have sweat glands, and as Joel points out, they have a very fast digestive system so you are eating alot of built up toxins(feces, parasites, antibiotics, steroids, pesticides from their feed). Also, when it comes to shellfish and fish without scales, it's still unsafe... why else do dr's tell pregnant women to stay away from those things? They are bigger fish that store up more toxins like mercury in their systems. Here's a good article that gets into why it's the unclean meats are still toxic to our systems...

http://www.lcg.org/cgi-bin/lcg/studytopics/lcg-st.cgi?category=Christianity1&item=1116549049

And again... today you can cook it times less than once upon a time because they have gotten rid of all them there toxins... and I don't care what the video says by folks that are out for their agenda of don't touch or taste. Point is... there's a lot of folks that have lived right long lives that at bacon or sausage most every morning of their lives and I'd never question their love for the Lord or their salvation because they pigged out (pun intended) on those items.

You don't want to eat pork or any meat in your case... that's cool. Knock yourself out and I'll not be offended in the least. If we ate together then I'd cook up something without all of that and be just as thankful for that meal as I am a T-Bone steak. But to question a Gentile believer and their obedience because they do not follow the law of Moses is truly as Matt said... getting into that Galatians issue.


Why did He make a distinction between clean and unclean animals when he was loading the ark?For the offering to God. First thing they did in fact once they got off that there boat eh?

ProjectPeter
May 13th 2008, 01:02 AM
Why wouldn't YHWH accept all His creatures for sacrifice if "every creature is good" and not to be refused? It makes me wonder if any animals went extinct as a result of Noah eating one or both of the two unclean animals he took on the ark.
Um... he liked the smell of some over the other. Goodness... only you and I can at best guess. Why was Cain's offering not acceptable and yet Abel's was? Lot's of speculation on that but none of it biblical. Fact is... we don't know. Best guess biblically... God wasn't into the smell of fruit of the ground but really did enjoy the smell of roasted lamb. :rolleyes: This is just absolutely reaching and reading doctrine into Scripture where the doctrine actually makes the actual words in Scripture of no affect.

Here is what that passage said when God spoke to Noah. All creatures are yours for food. Now... is that right or is that wrong?

valleybldr
May 13th 2008, 01:14 AM
To think God gave them those ordinances and whatnot that they actually couldn't keep... that does kick a few doctrinal sacred cows slap in the kisser. Sure and it should because it directly contradicts what the Lord said Himself when giving them Torah. Deut. 30:11 "For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off."

todd

ProjectPeter
May 13th 2008, 01:25 AM
Sure and it should because it directly contradicts what the Lord said Himself when giving them Torah. Deut. 30:11 "For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off."

todd No it doesn't contradict it at all. Jesus made the same thing clear. Moses gave those folks plenty of stuff that God never intended. Divorce... hate your enemy... etc. Those things are in fact in the Law of Moses and were allowed. But hey... one has to see before they can first understand.

Then add to the very simple facts of the New Testament Scripture written by Paul the apostle to the Gentile. Most folks in here are sure enough Gentile. We sure enough are not bound by the same yoke the Jewish folk were bound by and that was the Law of Moses as made clear by Peter and James in Acts 15.

One don't want to eat pork then don't. If you believe it a sin then to you it would be a sin because you couldn't eat it in faith. If one wants a ham and cheese sub from Subway tomorrow and they can give thanks for that food and eat it in faith... bon appetite. Be blessed in eating it.

diffangle
May 13th 2008, 02:04 AM
And again... today you can cook it times less than once upon a time because they have gotten rid of all them there toxins... and I don't care what the video says by folks that are out for their agenda of don't touch or taste.
Again, are mercury, antibiotics, steroids, and the high amounts of pesticides they consume considered food? You don't cook those things out. Also, why do dr's tell pregnant women to not consume shellfish and tuna?



Point is... there's a lot of folks that have lived right long lives that at bacon or sausage most every morning of their lives and I'd never question their love for the Lord or their salvation because they pigged out (pun intended) on those items.

I wouldn't question their salvation either, I would question if those who consumed those things and lived long lives suffered with health problems as a result of those foods and if they also consumed alot more plant material to balance out the fatty toxic meat consumption verses todays diet of fatty toxic meat with lots of processed foods(instead of veggies). I don't know if you've ever read Studyin2Show's testimony about how her father was advised by his dr to lay off the pork b/c it would kill him. Why would his dr say that about pork but nothing about laying off steak or chicken?



You don't want to eat pork or any meat in your case... that's cool. Knock yourself out and I'll not be offended in the least. If we ate together then I'd cook up something without all of that and be just as thankful for that meal as I am a T-Bone steak. But to question a Gentile believer and their obedience because they do not follow the law of Moses is truly as Matt said... getting into that Galatians issue.

Again I'm not saying it's a salvation issue, I'm saying that His instructions for us are good and I believe them to be for good reason.



For the offering to God. First thing they did in fact once they got off that there boat eh?

He only sacrificed one of each so why so many more pairs of clean than unclean. Noah ate more often than he did making sacrifices so why didn't YHWH command him to take just as many unclean animals if that was going to be what Noah would be eating as his food? If he was to eat one or both of the two unclean animals, then that would make them extinct quickly.


[quote=ProjectPeter;1636951]Um... he liked the smell of some over the other. Goodness... only you and I can at best guess.
Or maybe He doesn't like scavengers nor considers them food as He says in Deut. and Lev.



Here is what that passage said when God spoke to Noah. All creatures are yours for food. Now... is that right or is that wrong?

He didn't say all creatures, it says every moving thing but when you look at the Hebrew text, the word every isn't included in it, it's also interesting to note that when that Hebrew word appears in other verses it follows the words birds and/or cattle... so why include birds and cattle in the verses if that word means every creature? That same verse says that He gave the green herb too but I wouldn't rush out to consume that hemlock smoothie so quickly. ;)

Athanasius
May 13th 2008, 02:11 AM
I don't know, I heard from this guy named So Crates that Hemlock was a real trip.

diffangle
May 13th 2008, 02:15 AM
I don't know, I heard from this guy named So Crates that Hemlock was a real trip.
Drink up then. ;) :lol: Throw in some poison ivy while you're at it... yum.

ProjectPeter
May 13th 2008, 02:17 AM
Again, are mercury, antibiotics, steroids, and the high amounts of pesticides they consume considered food? You don't cook those things out. Also, why do dr's tell pregnant women to not consume shellfish and tuna?The same reason they tell them to stop drinking coffee, tea, coke, not take antihistamine, ibuprofen and whatnot. You going to call those things sinful too?



I wouldn't question their salvation either, I would question if those who consumed those things and lived long lives suffered with health problems as a result of those foods and if they also consumed alot more plant material to balance out the fatty toxic meat consumption verses todays diet of fatty toxic meat with lots of processed foods(instead of veggies). I don't know if you've ever read Studyin2Show's testimony about how her father was advised by his dr to lay off the pork b/c it would kill him. Why would his dr say that about pork but nothing about laying off steak or chicken?Because he had a heart condition or something or other... just like they tell them to lay off the salt when their blood pressure is high. Ready to call salt sinful and unclean? It doesn't wash you know... they could and I am sure told him not to eat fatty hamburger and etc. Fat is fat whether it comes from a pig or a can of Crisco. Next?



Again I'm not saying it's a salvation issue, I'm saying that His instructions for us are good and I believe them to be for good reason. If it ain't a salvation issue then don't meddle into others affairs. And truth be told... you think it an issue of obedience and not sure if you think obedience required... for one... I do. So that makes it a salvation issue no matter how you slice it. ;)


He only sacrificed one of each so why so many more pairs of clean than unclean. Noah ate more often than he did making sacrifices so why didn't YHWH command him to take just as many unclean animals if that was going to be what Noah would be eating as his food? If he was to eat one or both of the two unclean animals, then that would make them extinct quickly.If he sacrificed a couple of more times in that first year... it would have come right close to wiping them out too eh? Come on... WHAT DOES THE TEXT ACTUALLY SAY! IT ISN'T HARD! :lol:



Or maybe He doesn't like scavengers nor considers them food as He says in Deut. and Lev.Well... personally I wouldn't be all that fond of eating a buzzard for example. But before it got to me eating my own poop (happened in Scripture for those that get offended at what I just said)... I'm munching on a buzzard. And you know... I'm betting God ain't condemning me for it eh?


He didn't say all creatures, it says every moving thing but when you look at the Hebrew text, the word every isn't included in it, it's also interesting to note that when that Hebrew word appears in other verses it follows the words birds and/or cattle... so why include birds and cattle in the verses if that word means every creature? That same verse says that He gave the green herb too but I wouldn't rush out to consume that hemlock smoothie so quickly. ;)That is because your faith doesn't allow for that smoothie. ;) back at ya! :D

diffangle
May 13th 2008, 02:23 AM
If it ain't a salvation issue then don't meddle into others affairs

If what I've said in this thread is "meddling" then what you've said is "meddling" too. ;)

ProjectPeter
May 13th 2008, 02:25 AM
If what I've said in this thread is "meddling" then what you've said is "meddling" too. ;)
Not at all. It is defending the gospel in all honesty. None of us are bound to the Law of Moses. I am just trying very hard to say it nicely. That is waning though... hint, hint, wink, wink, nod, nod. You guys get it?

diffangle
May 13th 2008, 02:25 AM
That is because your faith doesn't allow for that smoothie. ;) back at ya! :D
I'd be curious to see your faith allow you to. :P

ProjectPeter
May 13th 2008, 02:27 AM
I'd be curious to see your faith allow you to. :P
Promise you... before it comes to my own stuff... I'm going for the SMOOTHIE! Not a doubt in my mind and I'll bless the fool out of it! :D

diffangle
May 13th 2008, 02:32 AM
None of us are bound to the Law of Moses

So the parts of the Torah that says "And YHWH spake" is the law of Moses? It's not the law of YHWH?

ProjectPeter
May 13th 2008, 02:45 AM
So the parts of the Torah that says "And YHWH spake" is the law of Moses? It's not the law of YHWH?
Okay... let me be even more bluntly clear. NO. It was the Law of Moses. ;)

diffangle
May 13th 2008, 03:05 AM
Okay... let me be even more bluntly clear. NO. It was the Law of Moses. ;)
Then why does YHWH call it His Law?

Ashley274
May 13th 2008, 04:00 AM
I like all of you and find this whole topic interesting and am kinda scared to get in the cross fire.... I will say I agree with Matt14 ...I do see some of another posters point on pork, fish and other meats being UNSAFE now...this is true they just had a case of Bovine encephalities(sp) in Canada pork chicken and fish have been fed melanine and cynuric acid....but the air isn't clean anyore and we have Genetically modified corn and veggies and junk they feed us nowdays...so while it may not be smart health wise..I do not think any food is against Gods law to eat...IMHO and meek one so please don't blast me....I think its not a sin Jesus covered it all.

valleybldr
May 13th 2008, 10:45 AM
I like all of you and find this whole topic interesting and am kinda scared to get in the cross fire.... I will say I agree with Matt14 ...
How does Matt 14 play into all this? Also, eating "wines flesh" is mentioned as "an abomination" in the future so I don't think science or tehnology (the old refrigerator excuse) is able to trump God. todd

VerticalReality
May 13th 2008, 12:08 PM
How does Matt 14 play into all this? Also, eating "wines flesh" is mentioned as "an abomination" in the future so I don't think science or tehnology (the old refrigerator excuse) is able to trump God. todd

Matt14 is one of the members taking part in this discussion. The poster above is stating that they agree with Matt14's point of view here.

I also do not think any technology "trumps God". I think God's Word has set forth clear direction regarding the law and the fact that born again believers are no longer under it.

Steve M
May 13th 2008, 12:12 PM
Interesting sidebar; was Circumcision part of the Law of Moses?

Before you answer, check out what Jesus acknowledged in the Gospel of John regarding just that, then check out what Paul said about circumcision in particular.

And if we can't agree on something as plainly laid out as circumcision, we will certainly never be able to agree on the Old Law dietary restrictions.

jffl25
May 13th 2008, 12:23 PM
If the dietary restrictions have been abrogated by Paul's teachings, then how do we explain Paul's personal observance of Torah?

Furthermore, when he was accused of doing so, why did he affirm his Torah observance (Acts 21:18-24)?

Personally, I am not convinced either way. Paul's actions seem to contradict [the common understanding of] his message. This seems unlikely.

Steve M
May 13th 2008, 12:33 PM
If the dietary restrictions have been abrogated by Paul's teachings, then how do we explain Paul's personal observance of Torah?

Furthermore, when he was accused of doing so, why did he affirm his Torah observance (Acts 21:18-24)?

Personally, I am not convinced either way. Paul's actions seem to contradict [the common understanding of] his message. This seems unlikely.
"To the Jews I became as a Jew...."

jffl25
May 13th 2008, 01:08 PM
"To the Jews I became as a Jew...."

I like your logic. Follow it out. The next verse: "to those who are without law, as without law". Did Paul break Torah when he was with those who weren't 'under law'?

In Acts, he defended himself over and over that he was Torah observant. Remember when he rebuked Peter for not 'walking the talk' in Galatians 2?

Steve M
May 13th 2008, 01:14 PM
I like your logic. Follow it out. The next verse: "to those who are without law, as without law". Did Paul break Torah when he was with those who weren't 'under law'?

In Acts, he defended himself over and over that he was Torah observant. Remember when he rebuked Peter for not 'walking the talk' in Galatians 2?
Uh, what did he rebuke Peter for? Are you sure?

jffl25
May 13th 2008, 02:18 PM
Uh, what did he rebuke Peter for? Are you sure?

...he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they [Judaizers] came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. Gal 2:12

I am sure you know the issue of Galatians. It was to address bad doctrine which taught that the Gentiles had to become Jewish (get circumcised) to become part of God's people. Peter was vacillating for fear of man.

My point is that Paul (and Peter) maintained their Jewishness (ie Torah observance) throughout their entire lives. It just seems contradictory that Paul would teach others to abandon the law when he kept it.

Brother Mark
May 13th 2008, 02:27 PM
...he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they [Judaizers] came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. Gal 2:12

I am sure you know the issue of Galatians. It was to address bad doctrine which taught that the Gentiles had to become Jewish (get circumcised) to become part of God's people. Peter was vacillating for fear of man.

My point is that Paul (and Peter) maintained their Jewishness (ie Torah observance) throughout their entire lives. It just seems contradictory that Paul would teach others to abandon the law when he kept it.

1 Cor 9:19-21

19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. 20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law.
NASB

Paul lived under the law of Christ but no longer under the Torah. He would give up his freedom and live under the Torah in order to win those under the Torah. And he lived among those without law, as if he was without law, yet always he lived under the Law of Christ.

Steve M
May 13th 2008, 02:59 PM
...he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they [Judaizers] came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. Gal 2:12

I am sure you know the issue of Galatians. It was to address bad doctrine which taught that the Gentiles had to become Jewish (get circumcised) to become part of God's people. Peter was vacillating for fear of man.

My point is that Paul (and Peter) maintained their Jewishness (ie Torah observance) throughout their entire lives. It just seems contradictory that Paul would teach others to abandon the law when he kept it.
Ah, thank you. I was confused by your first post, and wasn't altogether sure what you were positing from that rebuke.

I'm still torn on why you think that Paul's observance was for anything more than the reason he explicitly gave, as Mark just restated.

jffl25
May 13th 2008, 03:43 PM
Ah, thank you. I was confused by your first post, and wasn't altogether sure what you were positing from that rebuke.

I'm still torn on why you think that Paul's observance was for anything more than the reason he explicitly gave, as Mark just restated.

You are making me smarter than I am! :lol:

I am only saying that Paul maintained Torah observance his whole life. And, by the common interpretation of his teachings, he espoused an irrelevant Torah. Something is out of sync...

VerticalReality
May 13th 2008, 03:45 PM
You are making me smarter than I am! :lol:

I am only saying that Paul maintained Torah observance his whole life. And, by the common interpretation of his teachings, he espoused an irrelevant Torah. Something is out of sync...

The Scriptures posted above state that Paul didn't observe Torah his whole life. In fact, those Scriptures state that when he was around those who did not have the law he was as one who didn't have it as well. That would indicate to me that when he was around Gentiles Paul did not observe Torah. He only observed Torah when he was around Jews.

jffl25
May 13th 2008, 03:48 PM
The Scriptures posted above state that Paul didn't observe Torah his whole life. In fact, those Scriptures state that when he was around those who did not have the law he was as one who didn't have it as well. That would indicate to me that when he was around Gentiles Paul did not observe Torah. He only observed Torah when he was around Jews.

What did he mean when he spoke in his defense toward the end his ministry (Acts 28:17), "Men and brethren, though I have done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers..."?

VerticalReality
May 13th 2008, 03:52 PM
What did he mean when he spoke in his defense toward the end his ministry (Acts 28:17), "Men and brethren, though I have done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers..."?

It sounds to me in that passage as though Paul is being falsely accused of things he hasn't done. In fact, this passage goes on to say that even the Romans could find no fault in him. It sounds mighty similar to Jesus being falsely accused by the high priest. The high priest accused Jesus of blasphemy and so on when Jesus was never guilty of such a thing.

Brother Mark
May 13th 2008, 03:54 PM
What did he mean when he spoke in his defense toward the end his ministry (Acts 28:17), "Men and brethren, though I have done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers..."?

You think Paul kept offering sin sacrifices for sin in the temple?:hmm:

jffl25
May 13th 2008, 04:12 PM
You think Paul kept offering sin sacrifices for sin in the temple?:hmm:

Nope. But he did offer a non-sin related offering in the temple. Acts 21:26.

Brother Mark
May 13th 2008, 04:21 PM
Nope. But he did offer a non-sin related offering in the temple. Acts 21:26.

For the purpose of witnessing to the Jews and avoiding conflict. Oh, the sin offerings are a part of the torah. ;)

Acts 21:21-25
21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 "What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 "Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses in order that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 25 "But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.
NASB

He was being very practical. Seeing the stir that was being caused, he showed himself a Jew to the Jews. That's the point of the scriptures that he wrote in Corinthians. The scriptures in Cor. show that when he was among the Gentiles, he lived as one without law, yet always under the Law of Christ.

1 Cor 9:19-21

19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. 20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law.
NASB

Those Jews in acts had heard what he was teaching the Gentiles and weren't too happy about it.

jffl25
May 13th 2008, 05:03 PM
Let's be clear. "All things to all men" is not "do all things men do".

If any of us took a mission trip to a 3rd world country where fornication was commonplace for the indiginous people, we would not partake in these practices. Same with Paul. As a Jew, if pork was on the buffet, wouldn't he have passed?

Brother Mark
May 13th 2008, 05:05 PM
Let's be clear. "All things to all men" is not "do all things men do".

If any of us took a mission trip to a 3rd world country where fornication was commonplace for the indiginous people, we would not partake in these practices. Same with Paul. As a Jew, if pork was on the buffet, wouldn't he have passed?

That's why Paul worded it this way...

1 Cor 9:21
21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law.
NASB

To those without the torah, as without the torah, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ. To the Jews, he kept the Torah. To the Gentiles, he acted as though without law, but even in that, he kept the Law of Christ.

Ashley274
May 13th 2008, 11:27 PM
Thank you VerticalReality that is exactly what I was trying to say..I guess I should have said the poster named Matt14 but being I read the whole thread and then posted I thought folks would know...

:hug:


Matt14 is one of the members taking part in this discussion. The poster above is stating that they agree with Matt14's point of view here.

I also do not think any technology "trumps God". I think God's Word has set forth clear direction regarding the law and the fact that born again believers are no longer under it.

valleybldr
May 14th 2008, 12:17 AM
Let's be clear. "All things to all men" is not "do all things men do".

If any of us took a mission trip to a 3rd world country where fornication was commonplace for the indiginous people, we would not partake in these practices. Same with Paul. As a Jew, if pork was on the buffet, wouldn't he have passed? Had he not, the NT would be a lot longer because of dealing with the furor that would have insued. todd

ProjectPeter
May 14th 2008, 12:22 AM
Had he not, the NT would be a lot longer because of dealing with the furor that would have insued. todd

Um... it did insue. Ever read Acts?

valleybldr
May 14th 2008, 12:30 AM
Um... it did insue. Ever read Acts? Many times but never the part about Paul (or anyone else) eating pork. todd

Brother Mark
May 14th 2008, 12:32 AM
Many times but never the part about Paul (or anyone else) eating pork. todd

The apostles certainly didn't tell these folks to abstain from pork.

Acts 15:28-29

28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."
NASB

And of course, we have the passage in Corinthians where Paul said when he was among those without Law, he lived as without law, but still lived under the law of Christ.

valleybldr
May 14th 2008, 12:34 AM
The apostles certainly didn't tell these folks to abstain from pork.

Acts 15:28-29

28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."
NASB

And of course, we have the passage in Corinthians where Paul said when he was among those without Law, he lived as without law, but still lived under the law of Christ. Look at the entire passage. Where were they going to get their education/standards past rank pagansm? todd

Brother Mark
May 14th 2008, 12:36 AM
Look at the entire passage. Where were they going to get their education/standards past rank pagansm? todd


Yea, Paul was going to send the to the synagogues where they could learn properly. :rolleyes: That's why he pulled folks out of there and started a church on Solomon's porch.

1 Cor 9:20-21
20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law.
NASB

Hebrews 8 & 9 tells us the that regulations of the covenant are gone.

valleybldr
May 14th 2008, 01:04 AM
Yea, Paul was going to send the to the synagogues where they could learn properly. :rolleyes: The text speaks for itself. todd

Brother Mark
May 14th 2008, 01:11 AM
The text speaks for itself. todd

As does Corinthians and Hebrews.

Heb 8:13

13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
NASB

diffangle
May 14th 2008, 01:21 AM
Look at the entire passage. Where were they going to get their education/standards past rank pagansm? todd

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

ProjectPeter
May 14th 2008, 01:31 AM
Sure... and when Paul went to them there synagogues to preach to them the actual truth... well... they sort of kicked him out because they were all still hung up on the Law of Moses to the point they couldn't see Christ who could set them free. Goodness... this ain't that hard guys! ;)

ProjectPeter
May 14th 2008, 01:36 AM
Let me put it this way. It isn't a sin to eat pork. Never was a sin to eat pork. You will not see anyone judged in Genesis for eating pork. God penned Ten Commandments and guess what God didn't say... Thou shall not eat pig meat! It isn't there... you cannot find it. Moses made it Law. God let him make that Law because reality check... God was punishing them and he let all sorts of nonsense get piled up on those folks. It kept them in bondage even more so than when they were in bondage to Babylon.

diffangle
May 14th 2008, 01:47 AM
Let me put it this way. It isn't a sin to eat pork. Never was a sin to eat pork. You will not see anyone judged in Genesis for eating pork. God penned Ten Commandments and guess what God didn't say... Thou shall not eat pig meat! It isn't there... you cannot find it. Moses made it Law. God let him make that Law because reality check... God was punishing them and he let all sorts of nonsense get piled up on those folks. It kept them in bondage even more so than when they were in bondage to Babylon.
Read Leviticus 11, it says that YHWH was the one that told Moses not to eat swine, shellfish, etc.

Lev 11:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Lev&chapter=11&verse=1&version=kjv#1)¶And YHWH spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,

Lev 11:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Lev&chapter=11&verse=2&version=kjv#2)Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These [are] the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that [are] on the earth.

ProjectPeter
May 14th 2008, 01:51 AM
Read Leviticus 11, it says that YHWH was the one that told Moses not to eat swine, shellfish, etc.

Lev 11:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Lev&chapter=11&verse=1&version=kjv#1)¶And YHWH spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,

Lev 11:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Lev&chapter=11&verse=2&version=kjv#2)Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These [are] the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that [are] on the earth.
Sure... and read Ezekiel 20. ;)

Ezekiel 20:25 "And I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live;


that's called reality of Scripture.

valleybldr
May 14th 2008, 02:18 AM
Sure... and read Ezekiel 20. ;)

Ezekiel 20:25 "And I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live;


that's called reality of Scripture. I'd call it something else but I digress. todd (who serves One who's "yoke is easy")

Hawkins
May 14th 2008, 02:18 AM
Let me put it this way. It isn't a sin to eat pork. Never was a sin to eat pork. You will not see anyone judged in Genesis for eating pork. God penned Ten Commandments and guess what God didn't say... Thou shall not eat pig meat! It isn't there... you cannot find it. Moses made it Law. God let him make that Law because reality check... God was punishing them and he let all sorts of nonsense get piled up on those folks. It kept them in bondage even more so than when they were in bondage to Babylon.

I agree with you on that.

Sometimes, I find it difficult to explain correctly. I think that firstly Law of Moses was for the Jews, while the New Covenant is for both Jews and Gentiles.

Secondly, I think that the term "Law" in our mouths may not be Law alone but a mixture of both Law and Covenant. As we (or the Jews) can hardly identify which is which, it was thus called "Law".

While the Law part can hardly change, the covenant part can be re-newed. On the other hand, God knows that our hearts will be hardened (or the Jews') to obey the old covenant that a new covenant is already in place. We thus are no longer judged by Law including the old covenant, rather we will be saved by Grace through the blood of Jesus Christ and the New Covenant.

However, the 2 most important commandments will always be valid, that is, to love God and to love your neighbours.

My 2 cents.

ProjectPeter
May 14th 2008, 02:24 AM
I'd call it something else but I digress. todd (who serves One who's "yoke is easy")
His yoke was freedom... not the Law of Moses. Understand that and you'll understand much.

diffangle
May 14th 2008, 02:28 AM
Sure... and read Ezekiel 20. ;)

Ezekiel 20:25 "And I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live;


that's called reality of Scripture.
Deut. 30:11 "For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off."

Ezekiel 20 is speaking of statutes post-wilderness.

diffangle
May 14th 2008, 02:29 AM
His yoke was freedom... not the Law of Moses. Understand that and you'll understand much.
And...

Thus says YHWH, "Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, Where the good way is, and walk in it; And you will find rest for your souls.
-Jeremiah 6:16

Colossians 3:17
May 14th 2008, 05:01 AM
Colossians 2:20 ¶If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!"
22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using) -- in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

So, what would I say to a friend that would quote this scripture to me as saying that smoking pot and getting drunk is OK?

That passage clearly says to not listen to what other people tell you about what to taste or touch...It says not to submit ourselves to decrees like that now that we have died to the law.

I know smoking weed is wrong...But it is hard for me to explain why it is wrong when he could just shove right back into my face places where Paul says that we are dead to the law.

1 Co 6:12 "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything".

For some reason, we tend to hold on to some OT laws such as being against fornication, stealing, coveting, homosexuality, etc. etc....And are released from others: observing the sabbath, and about a million other specific levitical laws handed down from Moses.

Hawkins
May 14th 2008, 06:49 AM
Like I said, this is abit difficult to be explained.

Hebrews 7:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=7&verse=22&version=31&context=verse)
Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

Hebrews 8:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=8&verse=6&version=31&context=verse)
But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

Hebrews 8:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=8&verse=13&version=31&context=verse)
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

We are no longer judged by Law is far from saying that we are free to break the Law. To best secure your own salvation, you need to be second born. To be second born, you need to press on towards holiness. As in the end whether you will be saved by His Grace through the blood of Jesus Christ and the New Covenant is not judged by humans including you yourselve but our Lord Jesus Christ.

You may have to read this if you think that one is free to break the Law.

Hebrews 6:4-6
It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

valleybldr
May 14th 2008, 10:35 AM
Ezekiel 20 is speaking of statutes post-wilderness. Correct, in regards to the latter part of the chapter where God gave them over to man-made laws that facilitated their idolotry. He never commanded them to pass their children through the fire! This is the way of life contrasted against the way of death. Garden of Eden Part whatever. The text needs to be in harmony with itself (and the rest of Scripture).

Eze 20:10 So I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. :11 And I gave them my statutes, and showed them mine ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live in them.

vs.

Eze 20:18 And I said unto their children in the wilderness, Walk ye not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their ordinances, nor defile yourselves with their idols. 19 I am Jehovah your God: walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them; :20 and hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am Jehovah your God.....Eze 20:25 Moreover also I gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances wherein they should not live;:26 and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am Jehovah. Eze 20:28 For when I had brought them into the land, which I sware to give unto them, then they saw every high hill, and every thick tree, and they offered there their sacrifices, and there they presented the provocation of their offering; there also they made their sweet savor, and they poured out there their drink-offerings.

valleybldr
May 14th 2008, 10:46 AM
So, what would I say to a friend that would quote this scripture to me as saying that smoking pot and getting drunk is OK?

It does not sound like your friend is in the state of mind for a 10 part lecture on 1st century religious movments that are seen relected in Scripture. todd

Brother Mark
May 14th 2008, 11:00 AM
So, what would I say to a friend that would quote this scripture to me as saying that smoking pot and getting drunk is OK?

That passage clearly says to not listen to what other people tell you about what to taste or touch...It says not to submit ourselves to decrees like that now that we have died to the law.

I know smoking weed is wrong...But it is hard for me to explain why it is wrong when he could just shove right back into my face places where Paul says that we are dead to the law.

1 Co 6:12 "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything".

For some reason, we tend to hold on to some OT laws such as being against fornication, stealing, coveting, homosexuality, etc. etc....And are released from others: observing the sabbath, and about a million other specific levitical laws handed down from Moses.

That's because the regulations of the covenant (law of Moses) are different from the eternal law of God (the 10 commandments). While God used the law of Moses to shadow things in the heavenlies, it is not the same as the eternal law of God. The law of Moses is a covenant with Israel that was made on Sinai and that covenant has been replaced. As for those laws you mention, it is as Paul would say, keep the spirit of the law because we no longer live by the letter. And of course, there are plenty of NT verses about being sober and pure.

Brother Mark
May 14th 2008, 11:03 AM
Correct, in regards to the latter part of the chapter where God gave them over to man-made laws that facilitated their idolotry. He never commanded them to pass their children through the fire! This is the way of life contrasted against the way of death. Garden of Eden Part whatever. The text needs to be in harmony with itself (and the rest of Scripture).

Except the passage says that God didn't give them over to laws, but rather that he gave them laws. They weren't man made laws, they were laws he gave them, right?


Eze 20:10 So I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. :11 And I gave them my statutes, and showed them mine ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live in them.

vs.

Eze 20:18 And I said unto their children in the wilderness, Walk ye not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their ordinances, nor defile yourselves with their idols. 19 I am Jehovah your God: walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them; :20 and hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am Jehovah your God.....Eze 20:25 Moreover also I gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances wherein they should not live;:26 and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am Jehovah. Eze 20:28 For when I had brought them into the land, which I sware to give unto them, then they saw every high hill, and every thick tree, and they offered there their sacrifices, and there they presented the provocation of their offering; there also they made their sweet savor, and they poured out there their drink-offerings.

The whole conundrum goes away when we understand the difference between God's eternal law and the covenant.

Brother Mark
May 14th 2008, 11:11 AM
And...

Thus says YHWH, "Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, Where the good way is, and walk in it; And you will find rest for your souls.
-Jeremiah 6:16

Hi Diffy. Here's an example of how Jesus dealt with the law of Moses compared to the law of God. There are many more but this is a good place to start.

Matt 5:21-22

21 "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' 22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
NASB

This is a quote from the 10. He takes it further and reveals it is about the heart. He also speaks of having to go before God at the supreme court.

Compare that with this...

Matt 5:38-42

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 "But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 "And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. 41 "And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
NASB

Now, he is quoting from the Law of Moses "an eye for an eye".

Ex 21:22-25

22 "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
NASB

What are we to say then? Is Jesus no longer advocating an eye for an eye? It was part of the Law of Moses, yet clearly he is saying here, that we are to turn the other cheek. What's up with that?

He is drawing a difference, in the Sermon on the Mount, between the laws of Moses that govern a nation, and the laws of God that govern an individual.

ProjectPeter
May 14th 2008, 11:58 AM
And...

Thus says YHWH, "Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, Where the good way is, and walk in it; And you will find rest for your souls.
-Jeremiah 6:16
And thus said Jesus... you have heard it said in the days of old... BUT I SAY.... Christ or the Law... one can't serve both.

ProjectPeter
May 14th 2008, 12:04 PM
So, what would I say to a friend that would quote this scripture to me as saying that smoking pot and getting drunk is OK?

That passage clearly says to not listen to what other people tell you about what to taste or touch...It says not to submit ourselves to decrees like that now that we have died to the law.

I know smoking weed is wrong...But it is hard for me to explain why it is wrong when he could just shove right back into my face places where Paul says that we are dead to the law.

1 Co 6:12 "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything".

For some reason, we tend to hold on to some OT laws such as being against fornication, stealing, coveting, homosexuality, etc. etc....And are released from others: observing the sabbath, and about a million other specific levitical laws handed down from Moses.You show them in the New Testament where being a drunkard is a sin and doesn't allow for inheritance into the kingdom of God. You don't need to hold to the Law of Moses to speak against sin. Sin is sin and the Law is still going to be applicable to those that are living in sin and that sinfulness is contrary to the gospel. There was sin before the Law of Moses and God judged them for that sin. Sin didn't begin with the Law of Moses.

1 Timothy 1:8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers
10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

diffangle
May 14th 2008, 02:50 PM
Correct, in regards to the latter part of the chapter where God gave them over to man-made laws that facilitated their idolotry. He never commanded them to pass their children through the fire! This is the way of life contrasted against the way of death. Garden of Eden Part whatever. The text needs to be in harmony with itself (and the rest of Scripture).

Eze 20:10 So I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. :11 And I gave them my statutes, and showed them mine ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live in them.

vs.

Eze 20:18 And I said unto their children in the wilderness, Walk ye not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their ordinances, nor defile yourselves with their idols. 19 I am Jehovah your God: walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them; :20 and hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am Jehovah your God.....Eze 20:25 Moreover also I gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances wherein they should not live;:26 and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am Jehovah. Eze 20:28 For when I had brought them into the land, which I sware to give unto them, then they saw every high hill, and every thick tree, and they offered there their sacrifices, and there they presented the provocation of their offering; there also they made their sweet savor, and they poured out there their drink-offerings.
Yes, reminds me of 2 Thess. 2...


9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

diffangle
May 14th 2008, 03:16 PM
This is a quote from the 10. He takes it further and reveals it is about the heart.

Just b/c His children chose to be rebellious doesn't change the fact that it's always been about the heart, it being about the heart isn't a NT concept...

Deu 10:16 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&c=10&v=16&t=KJV#16)Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Brother Mark
May 14th 2008, 03:21 PM
Just b/c His children chose to be rebellious doesn't change the fact that it's always been about the heart, it being about the heart isn't a NT concept...

Deu 10:16 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&c=10&v=16&t=KJV#16)Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Correct. But in the sermon on the mount, Jesus contrasts the law of God with the law of Moses. When he speaks on the Law of God, he reveals what they should have already known, from the OT, that it was about the heart. David understood that in Psalms 51.

But when he speaks about "an eye for an eye" he is contrasting Moses law with the Law of God.

valleybldr
May 14th 2008, 08:00 PM
And thus said Jesus... you have heard it said in the days of old... BUT I SAY.... Christ or the Law... one can't serve both. The author the the Torah and the greatest manifestaion of Torah are one and the same. todd

valleybldr
May 14th 2008, 08:01 PM
Except the passage says that God didn't give them over to laws, but rather that he gave them laws. They weren't man made laws, they were laws he gave them, right? The laws (in Eze. 20) dealing with promoting idolatry were man-made. todd

jffl25
May 15th 2008, 10:11 PM
Perhaps the issue being discussed here is much more fundamental than it seems.

We must understand something about the law. To a Jew, the Law is a gift from God. It is their identity. It is not a burden to them. The 'yoke' that Jesus spoke of was the impossible system of extra-biblical commands that Pharisaic Judaism added to the Law.

Please read Psalm 119 again. Certainly the Psalmist did not regard the law as a burden.

valleybldr
May 15th 2008, 10:39 PM
Please read Psalm 119 again. Certainly the Psalmist did not regard the law as a burden. and neither did the Lord who authored it, kept it, and warned against those who taught against it. todd

Brother Mark
May 15th 2008, 10:44 PM
Perhaps the issue being discussed here is much more fundamental than it seems.

We must understand something about the law. To a Jew, the Law is a gift from God. It is their identity. It is not a burden to them. The 'yoke' that Jesus spoke of was the impossible system of extra-biblical commands that Pharisaic Judaism added to the Law.

Please read Psalm 119 again. Certainly the Psalmist did not regard the law as a burden.

And yet, those Jews missed God. They didn't see him when he came. Why? David saw him. What part of the Law did he keep in Psalms 51? Or what Law did he break when he ate the show bread?

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77