PDA

View Full Version : Do you eat rabbit or pork?



Pages : [1] 2

steph22nlly
Jun 5th 2008, 05:29 PM
It clearly states in the bible (Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 ) not to eat these..any many other types of meats, fish and birds, however in some places people eat rabbit..and a lot of people eat pork. I found a debate on the topic...

In the modern world, most Christians consume "unclean" meats not out of rebellion, but because of a belief that New Testament scriptures permit them to do so. The belief that Old Testament instructions on the consumption of animal flesh are no longer applicable is often referred to as "Christian liberty" (i.e. "freedom" from the "restrictions" of the Old Testament).

Is this something over looked by many Christians?
Do you believe the New Testament allows us to eat these meats??

crawfish
Jun 5th 2008, 05:36 PM
About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."


The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."


This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.


I think this makes it clear. The old covenant has been fulfilled; the new covenant has replaced it.

seamus414
Jun 5th 2008, 05:44 PM
I think this makes it clear. The old covenant has been fulfilled; the new covenant has replaced it.


Are you saying this because your name and icon is an non-kosher sea creature? :lol:;) j/k

Calvin
Jun 5th 2008, 05:45 PM
It clearly states in the bible (Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 ) not to eat these..any many other types of meats, fish and birds, however in some places people eat rabbit..and a lot of people eat pork. I found a debate on the topic...

In the modern world, most Christians consume "unclean" meats not out of rebellion, but because of a belief that New Testament scriptures permit them to do so. The belief that Old Testament instructions on the consumption of animal flesh are no longer applicable is often referred to as "Christian liberty" (i.e. "freedom" from the "restrictions" of the Old Testament).

Is this something over looked by many Christians?
Do you believe the New Testament allows us to eat these meats??

I believe (and I'm sure someone can tell us where it is.) In the book of Acts the only thing that the early church was forbidden to eat was Blood.
And the bible says " let no man judge you in meat or drink."

thepenitent
Jun 5th 2008, 05:45 PM
Jesus specifically said it is not what goes in your mouth that makes one unclean but what comes out.

Calvin
Jun 5th 2008, 05:48 PM
And why doesn't my signature show up?

steph22nlly
Jun 5th 2008, 05:49 PM
LOL seamus414! Thanks for the replies i feel better now about that BLT i had the other night!

seamus414
Jun 5th 2008, 05:54 PM
Actually this ties in to my post from a week or two back that was never resolved. The book of Acts seems to restrict Christians from eating food with blood in it or eating animals killed by strangulation. Do these restrictions still apply?

steph22nlly
Jun 5th 2008, 06:20 PM
I read that actual drinking of the blood is wrong but animals clearly stated in the bible you CAN eat obviously have blood...as for the strangled animals would that be a part or sacrificing the animal? I'm not sure what all sacrificing an animals consists of..i always thought its slitting the throat..but i found this..."Clear scriptures record that the New Testament did abolish the need for animal sacrifices and the various rites associated with those sacrifices (Hebrews 9:9-15, 10:4).

If you were in the wild and the only way to eat was to stangle an animal I would think that would be okay....

crawfish
Jun 5th 2008, 06:22 PM
I read that actual drinking of the blood is wrong

Isn't it nice to have SOME commands that are blissfully easy to follow? :D

Sorry for the interruption. Please continue.

seamus414
Jun 5th 2008, 06:32 PM
I read that actual drinking of the blood is wrong but animals clearly stated in the bible you CAN eat obviously have blood...as for the strangled animals would that be a part or sacrificing the animal? I'm not sure what all sacrificing an animals consists of..i always thought its slitting the throat..but i found this..."Clear scriptures record that the New Testament did abolish the need for animal sacrifices and the various rites associated with those sacrifices (Hebrews 9:9-15, 10:4).

If you were in the wild and the only way to eat was to stangle an animal I would think that would be okay....

For example: can you eat raw meat? How about a fairly rare hamburger? That has blood in it and under Jewish interpretation of the same regulations, one cannot eat these.

Virtually all laws of this ilk have the exception of a life/death situation. The most orthodox of jews, for example, can dine on porkchops if starving is the only alternative.

JordanW
Jun 5th 2008, 08:34 PM
I think this makes it clear. The old covenant has been fulfilled; the new covenant has replaced it.Amen to that! We are covered by his BLOOD! :D

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 5th 2008, 08:44 PM
I am one of those that holds to the understanding that the NT has in no way deviated from the Old Torah coveant practises, and that it still is found in the NT if one reads it carefully.
To say the NT no longer requires the same laws of old is to imply God changes.

BTW, you said in one post that you now feel better about that BLT after reading the responses here... well all i can say about that, is that if you feel convicted or unsure you ought to go to God and ask Him to make sure you understand it the way He would want you to, and not take anyone's understanding on the matter. Including mine. Search the scriptures for yourself.

There are plenty of threads regarding that matter, and i have participated in many threads on this very topic.

The biggest mistake you can make is base your understanding on one verse alone, but rather read the whole book in context.

And no, i do not eat rabbit or pork....i used to though until i learned otherwise through the scriptures.

The ball is in your court to find the truth, and with God's help and prayers for wisdom and understanding you will be given.


Shalom,
Tanja

crawfish
Jun 5th 2008, 08:49 PM
To say the NT no longer requires the same laws of old is to imply God changes.

Not necessarily. I can also imply that God is implementing His plan in stages - from Adam to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, from Moses to Jesus, and from Jesus to the end.

God doesn't change, but the world (and man) wasn't ready for the full disclosure of His plan.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 5th 2008, 08:58 PM
Crawfish,

i see what you are saying and i partly agree with a plan in stages. However, everyone would agree that the Law is a picture of God's Holiness, and in essence you could say God won't expect of us something he isn't Himself.

IOW the Law is the nature of God.

So to say the Law now no longer applies is to take away from the nature of God.

The only Law i see that has changed out of necessity which is written of in the NT is the Law of Priesthood. Before in the OT the Law stated that only people from the tribe of Levi could become priests, but we all know that Yeshua was from the tribe of Judah, descendant from King David.

Shalom,
Tanja

crawfish
Jun 5th 2008, 09:15 PM
Crawfish,

i see what you are saying and i partly agree with a plan in stages. However, everyone would agree that the Law is a picture of God's Holiness, and in essence you could say God won't expect of us something he isn't Himself.

IOW the Law is the nature of God.

So to say the Law now no longer applies is to take away from the nature of God.

The only Law i see that has changed out of necessity which is written of in the NT is the Law of Priesthood. Before in the OT the Law stated that only people from the tribe of Levi could become priests, but we all know that Yeshua was from the tribe of Judah, descendant from King David.

Shalom,
Tanja

Then the question is, why do some NT passages seem to conflict with OT law? Why do we eschew most OT law? Do you follow all 613 laws from the Torah?

ARCHER42
Jun 5th 2008, 09:31 PM
Jesus specifically said it is not what goes in your mouth that makes one unclean but what comes out.

Well stated;

Pretty much sums it up... as well as Pauls statement to believers about anybody 'not judging you in any meat or drink or any holy day....'

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 5th 2008, 09:33 PM
Then the question is, why do some NT passages seem to conflict with OT law? Why do we eschew most OT law? Do you follow all 613 laws from the Torah?
Because they are not read in the proper context, nor is the historical aspect taken into account.

As of yet, no i'm not following all 613 Laws, as i am still learning. Plus there are certain laws that can't presently be fulfilled as commanded as there is no Temple.... Also, certain Laws like stoning an adulterer cannot be fulfilled in the Law Legal way as prescribed in the OT. I'm not sinless, and neither are many of us... I may be righteous, but i'm not sinless.

Shalom,
Tanja

theleast
Jun 5th 2008, 09:36 PM
Crawfish,

i see what you are saying and i partly agree with a plan in stages. However, everyone would agree that the Law is a picture of God's Holiness, and in essence you could say God won't expect of us something he isn't Himself.

IOW the Law is the nature of God.

So to say the Law now no longer applies is to take away from the nature of God.

The only Law i see that has changed out of necessity which is written of in the NT is the Law of Priesthood. Before in the OT the Law stated that only people from the tribe of Levi could become priests, but we all know that Yeshua was from the tribe of Judah, descendant from King David.

Shalom,
Tanja

Jesus was there from the foundation of the law and salvation by grace was written in the law. The Laws in the Pentateuch were written for the Jews not the Gentiles.

amazzin
Jun 5th 2008, 09:37 PM
It clearly states in the bible (Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 ) not to eat these..any many other types of meats, fish and birds, however in some places people eat rabbit..and a lot of people eat pork. I found a debate on the topic...

In the modern world, most Christians consume "unclean" meats not out of rebellion, but because of a belief that New Testament scriptures permit them to do so. The belief that Old Testament instructions on the consumption of animal flesh are no longer applicable is often referred to as "Christian liberty" (i.e. "freedom" from the "restrictions" of the Old Testament).

Is this something over looked by many Christians?
Do you believe the New Testament allows us to eat these meats??

Oh come now. You are not going to get me to let go of my Rabbit cacciatore. NO way!

Besides, tell me what the NT teaches since you are so well versed? Doesn't it say ______

:idea:

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 5th 2008, 09:46 PM
Jesus was there from the foundation of the law and salvation by grace was written in the law. The Laws in the Pentateuch were written for the Jews not the Gentiles.Yeah, i keep hearing that one all the time. So Gentiles can continue to disobey the laws of God, because they are not Jews....
I suppose the Jews got special treatment....

Sorry for the sarcastic tone for a second, but hearing that statement rips my gut everytime.

I simply don't see it that way.. in the OT it reads that there shall be ONE Law for the Native as for the Sojourner.

I do not see that this has been contested anywhere.....

Shalom,
Tanja

ARCHER42
Jun 5th 2008, 09:52 PM
It clearly states in the bible (Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 ) not to eat these..any many other types of meats, fish and birds, however in some places people eat rabbit..and a lot of people eat pork. I found a debate on the topic...

In the modern world, most Christians consume "unclean" meats not out of rebellion, but because of a belief that New Testament scriptures permit them to do so. The belief that Old Testament instructions on the consumption of animal flesh are no longer applicable is often referred to as "Christian liberty" (i.e. "freedom" from the "restrictions" of the Old Testament).

Is this something over looked by many Christians?
Do you believe the New Testament allows us to eat these meats??
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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;

Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.



For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving

For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

1 Timothy 4: 1-5

These Scripture verses pretty much answers any questions...

diffangle
Jun 5th 2008, 11:21 PM
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;

Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.



For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving

For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

1 Timothy 4: 1-5

These Scripture verses pretty much answers any questions...
YHWH's Word/Instructions is a "doctrine of devils"? Paul was combatting gnoticism which practices ascetism(things like abstaining from food/meat and marriage/sex).

If "every creature" is to be received and not be refused... what about human flesh or a Moray eel(poisonous to eat)?

diffangle
Jun 5th 2008, 11:24 PM
Then the question is, why do some NT passages seem to conflict with OT law? Why do we eschew most OT law? Do you follow all 613 laws from the Torah?
No one can follow all 613 laws b/c not all the laws apply to women, not all the laws apply to men, not all the laws apply to non-preists, not all laws apply to non-owners of animals, etc.

diffangle
Jun 5th 2008, 11:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acts 10:9-16
About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."


The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."


This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

I think this makes it clear. The old covenant has been fulfilled; the new covenant has replaced it.

Chapter 10 and 11 make it clear that this had nothing to do with food and was about the Jews not calling gentiles unclean.

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.



I believe (and I'm sure someone can tell us where it is.) In the book of Acts the only thing that the early church was forbidden to eat was Blood.
And the bible says " let no man judge you in meat or drink."
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

If the OT law is done away with and/or the gentiles don't have to abide by OT instruction b/c it's only for Jews... why did they even bother making the gentiles abide by these things?

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 5th 2008, 11:39 PM
Originally Posted by ARCHER42 View Post

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;

Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.



For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving

For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

1 Timothy 4: 1-5

These Scripture verses pretty much answers any questions...YHWH's Word/Instructions is a "doctrine of devils"? Paul was combating gnosticism which practices asceticism(things like abstaining from food/meat and marriage/sex).

If "every creature" is to be received and not be refused... what about human flesh or a Moray eel(poisonous to eat)?That's why it's so important to know the historical background of whom the writers and speakers of the time were addressing and what they were speaking about.

Without that, it's easy to misunderstand these scriptures.

Diffangle, there's a book about what the gnostics taught back then... i forget what it was called as i have not personally read it, but i know several people who have.

I just know that gnosticism was alive and well even in those days.

Shalom,
Tanja

Zack702
Jun 5th 2008, 11:45 PM
Genesis c9 v3 "Every moving thing that liveth sall be meat for you."

The laws of the Angle of the Lord and of Moses who brought Israel out of Egypt are the ones stating that you should not eat certain things.
I consider that these laws were established in order to set Israel apart from the nations they were to war with.

If you are going to follow them then you should also build a altar of stone and sacrifice animals to The Lord performing the rituals of old and keeping there dates.
And so you would be required to kill your brothers and sisters for lesser sins in order to keep these laws.

Did they not crucify Jesus by reason of these same laws ?

I consider that most of the laws of Moses were for a particular people being Israel who had a special covenant with The Lord. And they built the ark of covenant but after lots of disobedience the ark was taken from them and also there covenant.

londonbelle
Jun 5th 2008, 11:49 PM
I don't eat any meat but I do eat shellfish. My mother having been raised Catholic, we have the traditional Friday night fish do and sometimes have shrimp or scallops that night and on the weekends. I've never eaten pork before. I've always been taught it's very unhealthy and plus questionable morally.

Yukerboy
Jun 6th 2008, 12:18 AM
I'm going to jump on the Jesusinmyheart's bandwagon here.

I know, I know, you're thinking "Yukerboy taking an unpopular stance? No way!";)

I am, but for different reasons.

As I said before in other threads, I no longer believe the Christian is capable of sinning.

Now, if I said the Christian is to ignore the law, that would be antinomianism and I am totally against that.

We have freedom from the law as a way to salvation, however, the law is still there as a guide to conduct. The Spirit gives Christians the power to observe the law.

All things are lawful to me, but not all things are beneficial. If this is true, then I break no law. However, not all I do is good for me, the faith, or my family.

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. That is to fulfill the law. That is to take part in the faith. However, that does not mean the law, which is fulfilled, is not a good guide of conduct.

Yuke

diffangle
Jun 6th 2008, 12:30 AM
[quote=Zack702;1662566]Genesis c9 v3 "Every moving thing that liveth sall be meat for you."

Humans and Moray eels anyone?



The laws of the Angle of the Lord and of Moses who brought Israel out of Egypt are the ones stating that you should not eat certain things.
I consider that these laws were established in order to set Israel apart from the nations they were to war with.

Imo, those instructions were established by our Creator for our benefit... check out this article which shows that science is just now catching on to how unkosher foods are related to poor health...

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





If you are going to follow them then you should also build a altar of stone and sacrifice animals to The Lord performing the rituals of old and keeping there dates.
And so you would be required to kill your brothers and sisters for lesser sins in order to keep these laws.

Isn't a Sacrifice(Yahushua) still required?



Did they not crucify Jesus by reason of these same laws ?

No, they had to lie in order to put Him to death... He never broke the Law, He was spotless/blameless.



I consider that most of the laws of Moses were for a particular people being Israel who had a special covenant with The Lord. And they built the ark of covenant but after lots of disobedience the ark was taken from them and also there covenant.

Why did they tell gentiles to abstain from blood, sacrifices to idols, fornication, and things strangled? Those are all OT requirements.

ARCHER42
Jun 6th 2008, 12:44 AM
YHWH's Word/Instructions is a "doctrine of devils"? Paul was combatting gnoticism which practices ascetism(things like abstaining from food/meat and marriage/sex).

If "every creature" is to be received and not be refused... what about human flesh or a Moray eel(poisonous to eat)?
---------------------------------------------------------

Be careful.. your putting words into my mouth...

When an individual comes along and starts to imply that their is certain foods as a Christian one CANNOT eat and if eaten it's sin or rebellion... I will go directly to what the Bible Tells me under the New Covenant...

Jesus Himself said , It wasnt what went into your mouth that defiled you... but what came out of it..... The Scripture in 1 Timothy is given to believers to understand and a WARNING....that there will be people who will come along and do just that.. judge you in meat , in drink, in respect to holy days and sabbaths.... they will try to bring you under the Law again......this will happen , especially in the latter days.. which we are in now...

The Bible specifically declares that your NOT TO LET ANYONE Judge you IN MEAT, OR IN DRINK, OR IN RESPECT OF A HOLYDAY, OR OF THE NEW MOON, OR OF THE SABBATH DAYS..

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

I will continue to 'enjoy' the food and meat God has blessed me with thru His Son Jesus the Christ.. whether it be a pork chop, or a fresh walleye dinner, venison, maybe a rabbit dinner, a nice steak.. I will enjoy these and understand that there is no condemnation in eating them.. Because I have recieved them with thanksgiving and they are sactified by the Word of God and prayer... You WILL NOT AND I REPEAT AGAIN 'NOT' bring me into bondage again and sitting under condemnation because of what I can eat or can't eat...

Touch not Taste not..... was NAILED TO THE CROSS WHEN HE STRETCHED OUT HIS ARMS... AND SAID 'IT IS FINISHED'!


Now you know where I stand when someone comes along and tries to persuade me that I should only eat this or not eat that.. or drink this or drink only that...

All I can say is..... Oh foolish Galations!

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 01:26 AM
Archer42,

i seriously doubt diffy is judging you, and neither am i. There's a difference in discussing scriptural views and judging someone.
We are only trying to explain why we do not agree with this view and mainstream scriptural understanding.

Shalom,
Tanja

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 02:02 AM
Before the law, there was no such thing as 'unclean' meat

Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
Genesis 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
At this time, God did not require man to eat certain "clean" animals. Any animal that "moved" was ok for eating.

1 Timothy 4:1 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;
1 Timothy 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1 Timothy 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1 Timothy 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Every creature, clean or unclean is good for food and should not be refused IF, and this is the key, if it is received with Thanksgiving and prayer because this is how unclean foods are sanctified. Sanctified means to be made clean. Unclean foods are still unclean if they aren't sanctified by God and that is done by our receiving the foods in thanksgiving and praying for their sanctification or cleansing!

Mark 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
Mark 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Mark 7:17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
Mark 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
Mark 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
Mark 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Mark 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
Mark 7:23 Al l these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Matthew 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Matthew 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
Matthew 15:13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
Matthew 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Matthew 15:15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
Matthew 15:16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
Matthew 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
Matthew 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

No longer then can any "unclean" food defile a man because a Christian receives his food with thanksgiving and with prayer that God will sanctify the foods being eaten.

25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26For "the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof." 27If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.

Zack702
Jun 6th 2008, 02:06 AM
Hello diffangle about the humans if you read the chapter I pointed out in Genesis chapter 9 you will see that the very next verse 4 states how you should not be cannibal.

Go and read in Leviticus from the start and read all of the laws of Moses. You will see for yourself what is required for sacrifice and what the laws are.

There are greater laws and there are lesser laws some for civil things and some for spiritual things. No law there is wrong nor is it in any way a bad thing to follow them. But I consider that they nor does anyone follow this law but only half followed it. They pick the ones that are convenient for them and follow them but they lack the ones that are not convenient for them. This was and is a snare.

And about Jesus I did not mean to say he did any sin I mean to say that they conspired against him with the laws of Moses claiming he had broken a sabbath on more than one occasion and that he falsely claimed he was the King of Jews.

Yukerboy
Jun 6th 2008, 02:27 AM
However, with the law as a guide to conduct, what the law said to us to not eat, even though it is lawful now, may not be beneficial.

Now, pass me that crab leg. :)

Yuke

diffangle
Jun 6th 2008, 02:37 AM
[quote=Zack702;1662698]Hello diffangle about the humans if you read the chapter I pointed out in Genesis chapter 9 you will see that the very next verse 4 states how you should not be cannibal.

Correct but everyone likes to use the verse that says "every moving thing" which obviously doesn't mean every moving thing... just as it later states that humans are not considered food the Scriptures also later state the animals that are to not be considered food too.




Go and read in Leviticus from the start and read all of the laws of Moses. You will see for yourself what is required for sacrifice and what the laws are.

There are greater laws and there are lesser laws some for civil things and some for spiritual things. No law there is wrong nor is it in any way a bad thing to follow them. But I consider that they nor does anyone follow this law but only half followed it. They pick the ones that are convenient for them and follow them but they lack the ones that are not convenient for them. This was and is a snare.

Should we not try to be obedient?


And about Jesus I did not mean to say he did any sin I mean to say that they conspired against him with the laws of Moses claiming he had broken a sabbath on more than one occasion and that he falsely claimed he was the King of Jews.
Right, they lied. He didn't break the Sabbath and He is the Messiah... so the law wasn't used to kill Him.

diffangle
Jun 6th 2008, 02:39 AM
However, with the law as a guide to conduct, what the law said to us to not eat, even though it is lawful now, may not be beneficial.

Now, pass me that crab leg. :)

Yuke
Did you happen to read that article/link I posted on page 2 of this thread? You might rethink what's beneficial. ;)

Zack702
Jun 6th 2008, 02:51 AM
[quote] Correct but everyone likes to use the verse that says "every moving thing" which obviously doesn't mean every moving thing... just as it later states that humans are not considered food the Scriptures also later state the animals that are to not be considered food too.

Hello diffangle I am only trying to point out that God said this to Noah. Which very well means everything you would like to eat is yours except do not eat others like you. I do not see how you can take this meaning away from this verse?

Obviously if one goes around eating everything that moves one is going to get sick and possibly poisoned. But if one wants something that moves that is good to one then by all means they should have it and give thanks that God has provided all this.

theleast
Jun 6th 2008, 02:55 AM
Matthew 15

16And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

That's all the proof you should need.

diffangle
Jun 6th 2008, 03:15 AM
Be careful.. your putting words into my mouth...

I wasn't putting words in your mouth:confused... I asked you a question which got no answer. In response to the OP's question of "Do you believe the New Testament allows us to eat these meats??" you responded with 1 Tim 4. so I asked you if YHWH's Word/food instructions were the "doctrine of devils" spoken of in 1 Tim 4. So what do you think... are His food laws the "doctrine of devils" spoken of in 1 Tim 4?


When an individual comes along and starts to imply that their is certain foods as a Christian one CANNOT eat and if eaten it's sin or rebellion... I will go directly to what the Bible Tells me under the New Covenant...
I understand that, that's why I'm trying to discuss and hash out what it says, this is Bible chat so we should be able to discuss different points of view/interpretation without the other getting offended at questions and having to resort to saying judemental things like calling them a foolish galatian. ;)


Jesus Himself said , It wasnt what went into your mouth that defiled you... but what came out of it.....
What was that passage actually about? Was it about food or was He addressing the wickedness of the pharisees putting their man-made traditions of washing hands before eating(hand washing is not a OT law) above YHWH's Law?



The Scripture in 1 Timothy is given to believers to understand and a WARNING....that there will be people who will come along and do just that.. judge you in meat , in drink, in respect to holy days and sabbaths.... they will try to bring you under the Law again......this will happen , especially in the latter days.. which we are in now...

Okay now you're mixing up 1 Tim 4 with Col 2. For clarity, let's address each passage seperatly. Again, with 1 Tim 4 you seem to think that Paul is talking about YHWH's law, so I ask you... is His law the "doctrine of devils" that Paul speaks of in this passage?

About Col. 2... Paul was telling the believers to not let others judge them for keeping the feasts, sabbaths, and kosher-eating b/c they "are" shadows of things "to come"... the words "are" and "to come" shows that Paul was speaking of future events. Also note in Col 2 he addresses the worshipping of angels(another gnostic practice)... nowhere in the OT is it commanded to worship angels so he obviously was addressing the gnostic influence of the time.




The Bible specifically declares that your NOT TO LET ANYONE Judge you IN MEAT, OR IN DRINK, OR IN RESPECT OF A HOLYDAY, OR OF THE NEW MOON, OR OF THE SABBATH DAYS..

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

See above.



I will continue to 'enjoy' the food and meat God has blessed me with thru His Son Jesus the Christ.. whether it be a pork chop, or a fresh walleye dinner, venison, maybe a rabbit dinner, a nice steak.. I will enjoy these and understand that there is no condemnation in eating them.. Because I have recieved them with thanksgiving and they are sactified by the Word of God and prayer... You WILL NOT AND I REPEAT AGAIN 'NOT' bring me into bondage again and sitting under condemnation because of what I can eat or can't eat...

Please tell me where I have judged you and tried to bring you into bondage?



Touch not Taste not..... was NAILED TO THE CROSS WHEN HE STRETCHED OUT HIS ARMS... AND SAID 'IT IS FINISHED'!

Col 2("touch ot taste not") is speaking of the gnostics, like the things the Catholics, Monks, Buddhists, etc, practice. They require fasting from meat and abstaining from sex/marriage.



Now you know where I stand when someone comes along and tries to persuade me that I should only eat this or not eat that.. or drink this or drink only that...

All I did was ask you questions and posted a article for you to read that shows how science backs up that unkosher foods are bad for your health. Did you get to read it? Is it possible that YHWH gave those instructions to His people to protect them?

[quote]All I can say is..... Oh foolish Galations!
Are you judging me and comparing me to a foolish Galatian?

diffangle
Jun 6th 2008, 03:23 AM
Obviously if one goes around eating everything that moves one is going to get sick and possibly poisoned. But if one wants something that moves that is good to one then by all means they should have it and give thanks that God has provided all this.
This is the point of this discussion... what is actually considered food in YHWH's eyes. Is the poisonous Moray eel considered food? Is toxin and parasite filled swine considered food? I would be interested in what you have to say about the article I posted on page 2 of this thread. :D

diffangle
Jun 6th 2008, 03:25 AM
Matthew 15

16And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

That's all the proof you should need.
Is He saying it would be good to eat a poisonous Moray eel?

Zack702
Jun 6th 2008, 03:28 AM
He is not saying it is good to eat moray eel he is saying one may eat what is good that one likes. Why is it so hard to see this ?

diffangle
Jun 6th 2008, 03:33 AM
He is not saying it is good to eat moray eel he is saying one may eat what is good that one likes. Why is it so hard to see this ?
What is considered good?

Vhayes
Jun 6th 2008, 03:45 AM
Galatians 3
19 - Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 03:58 AM
Is He saying it would be good to eat a poisonous Moray eel?

No but what he is saying is that the former unclean animals are now ok to eat as they had been before the law. Only the law had said not to eat them and with that law gone we are free to eat them again.

Zack702
Jun 6th 2008, 04:00 AM
What is considered good?

What is good for one may not be good for another.

We are talking simple food here like tomatoes ?

If one likes tomatoes and the taste of them is good for them and they feel healthy after eating them then that is good for them.

But one might not like tomatoes and one might feel unhealthy after eating them then this is not good for them.

But on the subject of meat I consider moderation is the key to eating any meat whether it be pork or rabbit. Never had rabbit personally by the looks of it I don't want it but who am I to say it is a sin to eat when one is hungry and it is good to them?

fewarechosen
Jun 6th 2008, 11:47 AM
this thread makes me sad

theleast
Jun 6th 2008, 12:07 PM
If we are to as Christians follow the laws of the Hebrews as some of you suggest, shall we follow this law as well?

Deuteronomy 22:22 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Deuteronomy+22:2 2&version=9)
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman

Who among you is prepared to follow this law?

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 12:24 PM
Crawfish,

i see what you are saying and i partly agree with a plan in stages. However, everyone would agree that the Law is a picture of God's Holiness, and in essence you could say God won't expect of us something he isn't Himself.

IOW the Law is the nature of God.

So to say the Law now no longer applies is to take away from the nature of God.

The only Law i see that has changed out of necessity which is written of in the NT is the Law of Priesthood. Before in the OT the Law stated that only people from the tribe of Levi could become priests, but we all know that Yeshua was from the tribe of Judah, descendant from King David.

Shalom,
Tanja

I guess, from my view, is that no Christian since the initial Jewish converts adhered to the Old Covenant practices. Thinking that you do, today, is to overturn 2000 years of New Covenant practice.

The Council of Jerusalem, accounted for in the book of Acts, relieves Gentiles of the Old Covenant.

Also, the Old Covenant was never intended for any one else aside from the Jews. It was a covenant between God and "his people" the Jews. As a Gentile, you have no covenanted obligations under the Old Covenant.

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 12:27 PM
Because they are not read in the proper context, nor is the historical aspect taken into account.

As of yet, no i'm not following all 613 Laws, as i am still learning. Plus there are certain laws that can't presently be fulfilled as commanded as there is no Temple.... Also, certain Laws like stoning an adulterer cannot be fulfilled in the Law Legal way as prescribed in the OT. I'm not sinless, and neither are many of us... I may be righteous, but i'm not sinless.

Shalom,
Tanja

Please consider the following: the reason why the bulk of the Old Covenant cannot be practiced is because it is obsolete! I trust you would not engage in Temple sacrifice were a Temple to exist would you? I am sure you would realize that is to undermine the One Sacrifice?

I will go out on a limb here and say that Old Covenant will never be able to be fully carried out ever again as it is obsolete. There is no purpose for the Temple anymore. There is no purpose for a Jewish theocracy anymore. The Sanhedrin can never conviene again as the bloodlines are lost. The High Priesthood can never be found again as the bloodlines are lost.

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 12:33 PM
What is considered good?


Filet Mignon. Medium. Maybe a baked potato with it.

Vhayes
Jun 6th 2008, 01:51 PM
Galatians 3
1 - You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?

2 - This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3 - Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

diffangle
Jun 6th 2008, 01:56 PM
If we are to as Christians follow the laws of the Hebrews as some of you suggest, shall we follow this law as well?

Deuteronomy 22:22 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Deuteronomy+22:2 2&version=9)
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman

Who among you is prepared to follow this law?
Deu 19:15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Deu&chapter=19&verse=15&version=kjv#15)¶One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

How often do you think more than one witness catches adulterers in the act? Can you give an example of it happening in Scripture?

diffangle
Jun 6th 2008, 01:58 PM
Galatians 3
1 - You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?

2 - This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3 - Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
Who here is trying to earn their salvation or the Spirit by the works of the law? :confused

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 02:02 PM
Deu 19:15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Deu&chapter=19&verse=15&version=kjv#15)¶One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

How often do you think more than one witness catches adulterers in the act? Can you give an example of it happening in Scripture?

First of all the witness requirement is only for a civil penalty. The lack of witnesses does not make it not a sin.

Why is an example in Scripture required? I am almost positive it has been accounted for in the Talmud.

I would imagine that the protestute that was going to be stoned in John's Gospel was seen by more than one witness. Take note that Jesus addresses their sinful heart. He *never* addresses their right to stone her under the law. Jesus challenged them spiritually. He did not say "why are you stoning her as there were less than 2 witnesses!"

Also, please note, a woman cannot be a witness.

Vhayes
Jun 6th 2008, 02:05 PM
Look closely:

Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

Colossians 2

16 - Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- 17 - things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

diffangle
Jun 6th 2008, 02:08 PM
Filet Mignon. Medium. Maybe a baked potato with it.
True :lol:

Lev 11:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Lev&chapter=11&verse=3&version=kjv#3)Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, [and] cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.

diffangle
Jun 6th 2008, 02:13 PM
[quote=seamus414;1663158]First of all the witness requirement is only for a civil penalty. The lack of witnesses does not make it not a sin.

Why is an example in Scripture required? I am almost positive it has been accounted for in the Talmud.

I go by the Scriptures, not the Talmud. ;) And the verse says "any iniquity".




I would imagine that the protestute that was going to be stoned in John's Gospel was seen by more than one witness. Take note that Jesus addresses their sinful heart. He *never* addresses their right to stone her under the law. Jesus challenged them spiritually. He did not say "why are you stoning her as there were less than 2 witnesses!"

Also, please note, a woman cannot be a witness.

Really? Cuz I think they were trying to trap Yahushua into unjustly accusing her(not according to the Torah)... where was the man who was "caught" in the act of adultery with her?

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 02:18 PM
True :lol:

Lev 11:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Lev&chapter=11&verse=3&version=kjv#3)Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, [and] cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.

Well the medium is not kosher as you cannot eat blood.

diffangle
Jun 6th 2008, 02:25 PM
Well the medium is not kosher as you cannot eat blood.
If the animal is drained properly before cooking it would be. If you think you're eating blood by eating your filet medium rare... what do you think about the Jerusalem council telling gentiles to refrain from blood?

diffangle
Jun 6th 2008, 02:30 PM
I guess, from my view, is that no Christian since the initial Jewish converts adhered to the Old Covenant practices. Thinking that you do, today, is to overturn 2000 years of New Covenant practice.

The Council of Jerusalem, accounted for in the book of Acts, relieves Gentiles of the Old Covenant.

Also, the Old Covenant was never intended for any one else aside from the Jews. It was a covenant between God and "his people" the Jews. As a Gentile, you have no covenanted obligations under the Old Covenant.

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Then why even bother telling the gentiles to do these OT things?

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 02:41 PM
I guess, from my view, is that no Christian since the initial Jewish converts adhered to the Old Covenant practices. Thinking that you do, today, is to overturn 2000 years of New Covenant practice.

The Council of Jerusalem, accounted for in the book of Acts, relieves Gentiles of the Old Covenant.

Quite contrary, 2000+ years have overthrown the practises of the early church.

If one reads the scriptures carefully you see that the Sabbath is still being adhered to, you also see that Paul never quit eating Kosher food, and stayed away from unclean food.

The whole discussion in Galatians is not about the Law itself but about a sect of Pharisees teaching a false gospel saying one must first be circumcised before one was considered included in the covenant. It was not about the whole Law.

The issue in Acts was about buying meat in pagan markets, and the same beingf sacrificed to idols.... it was a ruling to appease the Jewish members that the gentiles who would buy meat would take care not to eat anything strangled, which btw is still an old covenant Law, as is the abstaining from blood, and then lastly the mention of being carefull not to eat anything that was sacrificed to Idols.

It was not an abrogation of all the OT laws as many think.

It's really a matter of carefully reading all scripture and seeing all the small nuances that point to the truth.

Shalom,
Tanja

crawfish
Jun 6th 2008, 02:49 PM
Because they are not read in the proper context, nor is the historical aspect taken into account.

As of yet, no i'm not following all 613 Laws, as i am still learning. Plus there are certain laws that can't presently be fulfilled as commanded as there is no Temple.... Also, certain Laws like stoning an adulterer cannot be fulfilled in the Law Legal way as prescribed in the OT. I'm not sinless, and neither are many of us... I may be righteous, but i'm not sinless.

Shalom,
Tanja

Well, I respect your faith and you are absolutely free to worship using the law if you feel the spiritual need - in fact, the scriptures say that, for you, the law would be law.

However, based on NT scripture I believe this is now a personal faith and not law; for instance, Paul reprimanded the Jewish Christians for requiring the circumcision on Gentile believers. What we are to not do is force our personal faiths on others, we are not to weaken our fellow Christians by demeaning their personal faiths, and we are not to judge others for their particular personal faiths (or lack of), unless they stray from the core faith.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 03:10 PM
Deuteronomy 22:22
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman

Who among you is prepared to follow this law?


I am, but i also know that i'm not without sin, so i won't bother to throw the first stone!!!

Deu 17:6 On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.


Deu 19:18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely,
Deu 19:19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

So therefore one would be hard pressed to find a true witness.



Please consider the following: the reason why the bulk of the Old Covenant cannot be practiced is because it is obsolete! I trust you would not engage in Temple sacrifice were a Temple to exist would you? I am sure you would realize that is to undermine the One Sacrifice?

In the world to come there will be a temple once again, and it is my understanding the sacrifices will be reinstituted. And surely i shall participate.

Read Zechariah 14



Galatians 3
1 - You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?

2 - This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3 - Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

Clearly this was about the errant teaching of the Pharisees who taught one had to be circumcised first as per their understanding.
The Gentiles that started oput on the Spoirit could now not just switch over to their doctrine and be perfected in the flesh.

The apostles never said one coul or MUST NOT be circumcised, just that it shouldn't be done for the wrong reason and motive. If one got circumcised in the foreskin, to that person Yeshua's death was in vain.

Read this whole book of Galatians to see the context the issue is not the law but circumcision.

Jas 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Jas 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Jas 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

Do you propose James to be wrong when he said works needed to accompany Faith?
And juist what works do you propose that to be... if it's not the Law itself then you have a lot of wiggle room to do as you please because you'll never know what the will of God really is.


Shalom,
Tanja

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 03:18 PM
and we are not to judge others for their particular personal faiths (or lack of), unless they stray from the core faith.

And i don't. I was once just like you. I don't look down my nose on you, but rather i'm trying to explain to you things the way i understand for your consideration, not because i'm judging anyone.

As far as straying from the core faith... welll i believe the church itself has strayed from the core faith 2000 some years ago when the Jews persecuted those who believed in Yeshua and hated all the Gentiles that now flocked to the apostles, and when the Romans started persecuting anyone appearing to be Jews including those Gentiles whom they considered converts by their practices of the Law.

They levied a Judaicus ficus tax and did make their lives as hard as it could possibly be. So the early church was sandwiched between Jews and the Romans, and facing quite a strong amount of tribulation. Throw in the Jewish revolt and it was more than some could bear.

This squeezed out those that were not willing to go through this and so they divorced themselves from everything Jewish, and used scripture to justify the means. This became the early church fathers of the RCC like Ignatius and Justin Martyr.

Anyways, that's the simple version of what happened.

Shalom,
Tanja

theleast
Jun 6th 2008, 03:23 PM
I am, but i also know that i'm not without sin, so i won't bother to throw the first stone!!!

Deu 17:6 On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.


Deu 19:18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely,
Deu 19:19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

So therefore one would be hard pressed to find a true witness.



In the world to come there will be a temple once again, and it is my understanding the sacrifices will be reinstituted. And surely i shall participate.

Read Zechariah 14




Clearly this was about the errant teaching of the Pharisees who taught one had to be circumcised first as per their understanding.
The Gentiles that started oput on the Spoirit could now not just switch over to their doctrine and be perfected in the flesh.

The apostles never said one coul or MUST NOT be circumcised, just that it shouldn't be done for the wrong reason and motive. If one got circumcised in the foreskin, to that person Yeshua's death was in vain.

Read this whole book of Galatians to see the context the issue is not the law but circumcision.

Jas 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Jas 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Jas 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

Do you propose James to be wrong when he said works needed to accompany Faith?
And juist what works do you propose that to be... if it's not the Law itself then you have a lot of wiggle room to do as you please because you'll never know what the will of God really is.


Shalom,
Tanja

I believe you are mistaken when you equate the law to works.

For do you not know how Christ dealt with the Pharisees and the Saducees who tried to reason against Christ concerning his law in this matter...

Matthew 12


1At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.
2But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
3But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
4How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
5Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
6But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
7But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
8For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
9And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
10And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
11And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
12How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
13Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.
14Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.
15But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all;
16And charged them that they should not make him known:
17That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
18Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
19He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
20A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. 21And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

I am not a Jew or a Muslim, I am a Gentile, and I trust in Christ when he tells me it's not what goes in my body that is unclean but what comes out of my mouth.

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 03:35 PM
If the animal is drained properly before cooking it would be. If you think you're eating blood by eating your filet medium rare... what do you think about the Jerusalem council telling gentiles to refrain from blood?


Well a properly "drained" animal would not have the blood to make a medium rare steak so it is a moot issue.

All interpretations of the rule not to eat blood include rare (including "medium") meat.

Relative to the Council: I am still working that out. I will get back to you.

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 03:39 PM
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Then why even bother telling the gentiles to do these OT things?

If you look carefully the issue on the table at the COuncil was the following: does a Gentile have to first become a Jew before becoming a Christian or can a Gentile simply convert to being a Christian?

The Council's answer was: one does not have to become a Jew first before becoming a Christian however despite that a couple of minor dietary rules still apply as they are pre-Old Covenant that apply to all people.

Please note that the historic understanding is that the 7 Laws of the covenant with Noah apply to all people around the world.

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 03:41 PM
Quite contrary, 2000+ years have overthrown the practises of the early church.

If one reads the scriptures carefully you see that the Sabbath is still being adhered to, you also see that Paul never quit eating Kosher food, and stayed away from unclean food.

The whole discussion in Galatians is not about the Law itself but about a sect of Pharisees teaching a false gospel saying one must first be circumcised before one was considered included in the covenant. It was not about the whole Law.

The issue in Acts was about buying meat in pagan markets, and the same beingf sacrificed to idols.... it was a ruling to appease the Jewish members that the gentiles who would buy meat would take care not to eat anything strangled, which btw is still an old covenant Law, as is the abstaining from blood, and then lastly the mention of being carefull not to eat anything that was sacrificed to Idols.

It was not an abrogation of all the OT laws as many think.

It's really a matter of carefully reading all scripture and seeing all the small nuances that point to the truth.

Shalom,
Tanja


My understanding is that the issue in Acts, and Galatians, was whether a Gentile had to first become a Jew in order to become a Christian. I do not see what you mention above as being on the agenda at the Council of Jerusalem.

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 03:44 PM
In the world to come there will be a temple once again, and it is my understanding the sacrifices will be reinstituted. And surely i shall participate.

Read Zechariah 14

Tanja

We are not in the world to come, so any statements about it are not instructive as to how to live in the world at present.

Also, these sacrifices which you believe will happen cannot have atoning efficacy. They must be for some other purpose.

diffangle
Jun 6th 2008, 03:49 PM
[quote=seamus414;1663306]If you look carefully the issue on the table at the COuncil was the following: does a Gentile have to first become a Jew before becoming a Christian or can a Gentile simply convert to being a Christian?

The Council's answer was: one does not have to become a Jew first before becoming a Christian however despite that a couple of minor dietary rules still apply as they are pre-Old Covenant that apply to all people.

A gentile was not required to become a Jew in the Torah either. The word Jew doesn't even exist in the Torah. "Becoming a Jew" is a rabbinic thing/law.


Please note that the historic understanding is that the 7 Laws of the covenant with Noah apply to all people around the world.
YHWH's instructions are for all who are His, be it Jew or gentile...

Num 15:16 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Num&c=15&v=16&t=KJV#16) One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 03:50 PM
[quote]

I go by the Scriptures, not the Talmud. ;) And the verse says "any iniquity".



Really? Cuz I think they were trying to trap Yahushua into unjustly accusing her(not according to the Torah)... where was the man who was "caught" in the act of adultery with her?

My point was that just because the Bible does not have an example of someone being convicted of adultery based upon 2 witnesses does not mean it has never happen or could never happen. The Old Covenant has been practiced for 3000+ years so to suggest it never happened or could never happen is a little absurd.

My reading of the story of Jesus and the prostitute does not exclude your reading of it that there was a trap for Jesus. However, if the law was being broken Jesus would have said "hey! you cannot stone her as it will break your law!" - he never said anything of the sort. The logical conclusion is that he did not say it because no law was being broken.

The point of the story is Jesus' stark contrast between the Old Convenant (i.e.: "law"), which was being accurately enforced upon the woman, and Jesus' New Covenant of grace which he freely gave to the woman.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 03:58 PM
Phaeton426


I believe you are mistaken.....
Ditto. ;)

I believe you're missing the bigger picture on the circumstances of the Pharisees deriding Yeshua's disciples for doing what they did.

They weren't breaking the Law as the Pharisees surmised, but rather they were hungered and took care of their bodies.
The Pharisees were missing the weightier matters of the Law, mainly Grace, Mercy and compassion, and justice.

They would rather see a starving man not reap the corn, and starve to death than to allow someone any sort of remedy for comfort.

Hence you see Yeshua giving the example of going into the temple eating the showbread which was not lawful to eat, and yet the Priest allowed it to be so because he had compassion.

Yeshua was not saying this was normal circumstances that warranted a deviating from the customary way of doing things on the Sabbath.

What Yeshua is showing with the example He gives, is that when a live is in a good amount of discomfort, or even danger the law to preserve life out of compassion and Love preveails any other Law.

Hence Yeshua also gives examples of a sheep falling into a pit. It shows that the preserving of life always outweighs any other command.

You will also find that a woman who steals food to sustain herself or her family is not to be punished.

Shalom,
Tanja

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 04:01 PM
[quote]

A gentile was not required to become a Jew in the Torah either. The word Jew doesn't even exist in the Torah. "Becoming a Jew" is a rabbinic thing/law.


YHWH's instructions are for all who are His, be it Jew or gentile...

Num 15:16 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Num&c=15&v=16&t=KJV#16) One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.

First of all, I did not realize we were using specific terms of art. Excuse my use of the word "Jewish" and "Jew" - I was using them colloquially as they are easy to use and generally understood.

Allow me to rephrase: the issue on the table is whether one had to comply with all of the requirements of the Old Covenant before receiving the New Covenant. The answer was, of course, no. Someone outside the Old Covenant could go directly to the New and bypass the Old.

Under the Torah a gentile had to become a "Jew" (pardon the colloquialism). There is a specific conversion process for the gentile. The gentile's acceptance of, and compliance with, the Old Covenant is specifically marked by circumcison. Without this mark, the gentile is not under the Covenant.

You do not seem to understand how the Old Covenant works. The Covenant was a contract. The parties to the contract were God, on one side, and the Isrealites on the other (i.e.: "Jews"). No one else - all gentiles - were a party to the contract. Therefore, gentiles have no obligations under the contract.

The issue on the table in Acts was whether a gentile had to become a party to the Old COntract or go directly to the New (and universal) contract. The answer, of course, was that a gentile does not have to become a party to the first contract.

You have to be careful about plucking a verse out and then making a gross generlization, as you have done with the Numbers verse. You have to put some thought into it. All throughout the Old Covenant there is an intense awareness of being an Israelitie and not a gentile. The Old Covenant takes great pains to prevent assimiliation and to foster seperateness for God's people. The verse in Numbers addresses a gentile living among the Israelites. The law requires them to "do as the Romans do when in Rome" (if you would allow me to borrow this idiom). This ensures that the gentile does not infect the Israelites with his gentile ways. It also allows the gentile to receive the benefits of the just Law as gentile law was much more capricious and brutal.

diffangle
Jun 6th 2008, 04:03 PM
[quote=seamus414;1663328]
My point was that just because the Bible does not have an example of someone being convicted of adultery based upon 2 witnesses does not mean it has never happen or could never happen. The Old Covenant has been practiced for 3000+ years so to suggest it never happened or could never happen is a little absurd.

My point was that it isn't a common occurance. Do you personally know of anyone who was caught in adultery by two or more witnesses?


My reading of the story of Jesus and the prostitute does not exclude your reading of it that there was a trap for Jesus. However, if the law was being broken Jesus would have said "hey! you cannot stone her as it will break your law!" - he never said anything of the sort. The logical conclusion is that he did not say it because no law was being broken.
Or else He was knew that they were trying to trap him and instead of responding with the response that a normal person might use, He decided to expose their own wickedness(like He did many times) in the process. They were lying b/c they didn't bring forth the man "caught" in the adultery.


The point of the story is Jesus' stark contrast between the Old Convenant (i.e.: "law"), which was being accurately enforced upon the woman, and Jesus' New Covenant of grace which he freely gave to the woman.
Again I ask, where was the man caught in the act? Yahushua never broke the Law, if He had He would not have been the perfect unblemished Lamb.

Vhayes
Jun 6th 2008, 04:05 PM
I have to ask - if we were to live under the Law today, don't you think SOMEWHERE in the New Testament at least one of the authors would have said something along the lines of:

Now that we have Jesus as our Savior and Redeemer, sacrifice will end but the remainder of the Law stands.

I do not see that anywhere. Instead, I read things like:
Galatians 2
7 - But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised

8 - (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),
9 - and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 - They only asked us to remember the poor--the very thing I also was eager to do.

and

Galatians 3
2 - This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
3 - Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

And on and on and on.

The party of the circumcision were JEWS. It wasn't about being circumcised, it was about LIVING like the old Covenant Jews.

Galatians 2
11 - But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

12 - For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.
13 - The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 - But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 04:09 PM
My understanding is that the issue in Acts, and Galatians, was whether a Gentile had to first become a Jew in order to become a Christian. I do not see what you mention above as being on the agenda at the Council of Jerusalem.

I do Seamus.

Consider this:

Rom 2:29 Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God.

These people(Some Pharisees) were teaching that outward circumcision was required forst and foremost!!!! Imagine the ramifications of this!!!

Look at this also:

Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and said, "It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses."
Act 15:6 The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter.
Act 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "My brothers, [110] you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers.
Act 15:8 And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us;
Act 15:9 and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us.
Act 15:10 Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?

First verse shows they were trying to teach a mechanical adhering to the Law, and not concerned with the Spirit of each law, and not with circumcision of the heart.

Last verse shows it to be a yoke, and now go study what Yeshua called a yoke... it was always when the Pharisees and scribes were making people follow the Law to a T without mercy compassion and grace reigning first and foremost.

IOW i wouldbeen condemned for picking a sheep out of a pit on the Sabbath. that this was not the correct understanding of the Law is whay Yeshua repeatedly tried to point out to them. Not that it was wrong to observe!

Shalom,
Tanja

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 04:11 PM
I do Seamus.

Consider this:

Rom 2:29 Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God.

These people(Some Pharisees) were teaching that outward circumcision was required forst and foremost!!!! Imagine the ramifications of this!!!

Look at this also:

Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and said, "It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses."
Act 15:6 The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter.
Act 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "My brothers, [110] you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers.
Act 15:8 And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us;
Act 15:9 and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us.
Act 15:10 Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?

First verse shows they were trying to teach a mechanical adhering to the Law, and not concerned with the Spirit of each law, and not with circumcision of the heart.

Last verse shows it to be a yoke, and now go study what Yeshua called a yoke... it was always when the Pharisees and scribes were making people follow the Law to a T without mercy compassion and grace reigning first and foremost.

IOW i wouldbeen condemned for picking a sheep out of a pit on the Sabbath. that this was not the correct understanding of the Law is whay Yeshua repeatedly tried to point out to them. Not that it was wrong to observe!

Shalom,
Tanja

It is not wrong for you to observe it if you feel it enhances your spirituality. However, observance of the Law is not required among Christians.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 04:13 PM
Also consider this:


Act 15:9 and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us.

If there was no disticntion between the Jews and the Gentiloes, then why did Paul continue to abstain from eating unkosher food?
Why did they continue to meet on the Sabbath?

Goes to follow the Gentiles too were doing these things at least as they matured.

Shalom,
Tanja

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 04:14 PM
[quote]

My point was that it isn't a common occurance. Do you personally know of anyone who was caught in adultery by two or more witnesses?


Or else He was knew that they were trying to trap him and instead of responding with the response that a normal person might use, He decided to expose their own wickedness(like He did many times) in the process. They were lying b/c they didn't bring forth the man "caught" in the adultery.


Again I ask, where was the man caught in the act? Yahushua never broke the Law, if He had He would not have been the perfect unblemished Lamb.


No I do not personally know someone like that but my experience with such things is pretty slim.

Again, your reading of the passage relative to Jesus' intent is not mutually exclusive to my own reading of it.

Also, why does the man have to be caught? He may have already been dealt with elsewhere. Or maybe they were going to get him next. Requring both to be in the story at the same time is not something the story itself requires, nor is it necessary for the story to relate its point, nor does it diminish the enforcement of the Law. The man is simply irrelevant to the story.

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 04:16 PM
Also consider this:



If there was no disticntion between the Jews and the Gentiloes, then why did Paul continue to abstain from eating unkosher food?
Why did they continue to meet on the Sabbath?

Goes to follow the Gentiles too were doing these things at least as they matured.

Shalom,
Tanja


That was Paul's choice as (1) he was born under the law and (2) he felt that he was called to this lifestyle.

He, in no place, required gentiles converts to take on the responsibility of the Law.

The fact that the practice of the Law among Christians died out with the Apostles is evidence enough that it was not required.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 04:21 PM
It is not wrong for you to observe it if you feel it enhances your spirituality. However, observance of the Law is not required among Christians.

It's not to enhance my spirituality! I do it becuae i believe God wants us to follow His commandments.

As for it not being required, well i can only disagree with you:

Exo 31:16 Therefore the Israelites shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant.
Exo 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."

Note it says Israelites, not Jews.. Jew is a relatively new term.....
Perpetual means forever.
It's a sign between God and His people Yes Israel, but am i not grafted into the tree, and part of Israel now?

I'm not telling you you must do this. I'm just telling you how i understand this.
And i guess we'll just have to accept that we can't come to an agreement on this.

Shalom,
Tanja

fewarechosen
Jun 6th 2008, 04:27 PM
i forgot to answer the question.

well pork is my favorite meat, pork skin is delicious deep fried. and what can i say about ribs mmmmm mmmm

i also enjoy rabbit, went hunting this winter for them.
slightly tough because they are wild, yet when prepared properly not gamey at all. very good in stews and such.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 04:28 PM
The fact that the practice of the Law among Christians died out with the Apostles is evidence enough that it was not required.

I think it's rather evidence of this:

2Ti 4:3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,
2Ti 4:4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

I just do not agree with you.....

If Paul made a choice to continue keeping of the Law, then i suppose you'd have to say he was fallen from Grace?

Shalom,
Tanja

diffangle
Jun 6th 2008, 04:29 PM
First of all, I did not realize we were using specific terms of art. Excuse my use of the word "Jewish" and "Jew" - I was using them colloquially as they are easy to use and generally understood.

Allow me to rephrase: the issue on the table is whether one had to comply with all of the requirements of the Old Covenant before receiving the New Covenant. The answer was, of course, no. Someone outside the Old Covenant could go directly to the New and bypass the Old.

The NT doesn't annul the OT... it expounds on it.



Under the Torah a gentile had to become a "Jew" (pardon the colloquialism). There is a specific conversion process for the gentile. The gentile's acceptance of, and compliance with, the Old Covenant is specifically marked by circumcison. Without this mark, the gentile is not under the Covenant.

Please show me where adult male circumcision is required of a gentile believer post-Sinai.


You do not seem to understand how the Old Covenant works. The Covenant was a contract. The parties to the contract were God, on one side, and the Isrealites on the other (i.e.: "Jews"). No one else - all gentiles - were a party to the contract. Therefore, gentiles have no obligations under the contract.
There are many verses in the Torah that says theat one law shall be for all.


The issue on the table in Acts was whether a gentile had to become a party to the Old COntract or go directly to the New (and universal) contract. The answer, of course, was that a gentile does not have to become a party to the first contract.
Why bother telling gentiles to abstain from blood, things strangled, sacrificed to idols, and fornication if the OT doesn't apply to gentiles?


You have to be careful about plucking a verse out and then making a gross generlization, as you have done with the Numbers verse. You have to put some thought into it. All throughout the Old Covenant there is an intense awareness of being an Israelitie and not a gentile. The Old Covenant takes great pains to prevent assimiliation and to foster seperateness for God's people.
You must put some thought into not disregarding our Creators instructions for His people. Were Abraham, Isaac, Job, Ruth "Jews"? There are many verses that speak of there being one law for all.


The verse in Numbers addresses a gentile living among the Israelites. The law requires them to "do as the Romans do when in Rome" (if you would allow me to borrow this idiom). This ensures that the gentile does not infect the Israelites with his gentile ways. It also allows the gentile to receive the benefits of the just Law as gentile law was much more capricious and brutal.
The law required all who are His to be obedient to His Instructions and we who are His are grafted in with Israel (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=9&verse=6&version=kjv#6)...

Rev 14:12 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=14&v=12&t=KJV#12)Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 04:30 PM
It's not to enhance my spirituality! I do it becuae i believe God wants us to follow His commandments.

As for it not being required, well i can only disagree with you:

Exo 31:16 Therefore the Israelites shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant.
Exo 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."

Note it says Israelites, not Jews.. Jew is a relatively new term.....
Perpetual means forever.
It's a sign between God and His people Yes Israel, but am i not grafted into the tree, and part of Israel now?

I'm not telling you you must do this. I'm just telling you how i understand this.
And i guess we'll just have to accept that we can't come to an agreement on this.

Shalom,
Tanja


As I said in another post, I did not realize we were using terms of art. I realize "Jewish" derives from the intertestimentary period or so. Regardless, it is descriptive. However, I can use the term "Israelite" if you wish.

Well as I am not an Israelite I do not have to follow the law. The plain language states that in the Scripture you quoted.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 04:32 PM
I find it interesting what Isaiah says of all this:

Isa 66:16 For by fire will the Lord execute judgment, and by his sword, on all flesh; and those slain by the Lord shall be many.
Isa 66:17 Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following the one in the center, eating the flesh of pigs, vermin, and rodents, shall come to an end together, says the Lord.

Shalom,
Tanja

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 04:32 PM
I think it's rather evidence of this:

2Ti 4:3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,
2Ti 4:4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

I just do not agree with you.....

If Paul made a choice to continue keeping of the Law, then i suppose you'd have to say he was fallen from Grace?

Shalom,
Tanja

Wow, so what you are saying is that it only took on generation before all of Christendom got derailed and never got back on track.

No, I said Paul's personal spirituality let him to be compliant. He never required it of his converts.

What do you make of the sheet that Peter saw? The decree of the COuncil of Jerusalem? Do these not apply?

diffangle
Jun 6th 2008, 04:34 PM
I have to ask - if we were to live under the Law today, don't you think SOMEWHERE in the New Testament at least one of the authors would have said something along the lines of:

Now that we have Jesus as our Savior and Redeemer, sacrifice will end but the remainder of the Law stands.

I do not see that anywhere.

Mat 5:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=5&verse=17&version=kjv#17) ¶Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Mat 5:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=5&verse=18&version=kjv#18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Have heaven and earth passed yet?

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 04:38 PM
The NT doesn't annul the OT... it expounds on it.

I never said anything about "annul". The OT has been completed with Jesus' utterance of "It is FInished". The New is what is currently in effect.

Please show me where adult male circumcision is required of a gentile believer post-Sinai.

I am not sure what you are asking. However, any convert to the Old Covenant (commonly called "Judaism") requires circumcison. Indeed, that was part of the quesiton on the table at the Council of Jerusalem. Those male gentile converts wanted to avoid circumcision for obvious reasons!

There are many verses in the Torah that says theat one law shall be for all.

All Israelites, not gentiles.

Why bother telling gentiles to abstain from blood, things strangled, sacrificed to idols, and fornication if the OT doesn't apply to gentiles?

I mentioned this in another post. The covenant with Noah was expressly universal so these things may apply.

You must put some thought into not disregarding our Creators instructions for His people. Were Abraham, Isaac, Job, Ruth "Jews"? There are many verses that speak of there being one law for all.

These folks were specifically under a Covenant with God. Abraham and Isaac were obviously under the Law. Job is a mystery. Ruth is a convert into the Law. So, no they are all under express Covenant terms. The average gentile is not.

The law required all who are His to be obedient to His Instructions and we who are His are grafted in with Israel (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=9&verse=6&version=kjv#6)...



Rev 14:12 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=14&v=12&t=KJV#12)Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. [/quote]

Vhayes
Jun 6th 2008, 04:45 PM
Mat 5:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=5&verse=17&version=kjv#17) ¶Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Mat 5:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=5&verse=18&version=kjv#18)For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Have heaven and earth passed yet?
Has ONE jot or tittle passed away????

I think the answer is yes, far MORE than a jot of tittle passed away.

diffangle
Jun 6th 2008, 04:46 PM
[quote=seamus414;1663368][quote=diffangle;1663351]
No I do not personally know someone like that but my experience with such things is pretty slim.


Exactly, I too don't know of two or more people who have caught a couple in the act of adultery, it must be a pretty rare occurance.



Again, your reading of the passage relative to Jesus' intent is not mutually exclusive to my own reading of it.

Also, why does the man have to be caught? He may have already been dealt with elsewhere. Or maybe they were going to get him next. Requring both to be in the story at the same time is not something the story itself requires, nor is it necessary for the story to relate its point, nor does it diminish the enforcement of the Law. The man is simply irrelevant to the story.

B/c the law requires that both the man and the woman be brought before the priests and Yahushua couldn't rightly carry out the law (a)without 2 or more witnesses and (b) without both of the guilty parties present. Does that passage say anything about the two witnesses who supposedly caught this adulterer? Or are the two or more witnesses absent from the picture? Were they all guilty of lying and trying to trap Yahushua?

fewarechosen
Jun 6th 2008, 04:46 PM
this is starting to sound alot like man made doctrine.
i can start to see many in this thread probably claim to be of some denomination.

diffangle
Jun 6th 2008, 04:47 PM
Has ONE jot or tittle passed away????

I think the answer is yes, far MORE than a jot of tittle passed away.
Are you going to answer my question?

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 04:53 PM
What do you make of the sheet that Peter saw?
Nothing more than what Peter himself said the vision was about in Verse 28

Act 10:28 And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.

Peter says the vision was about people, not the food...that's pretty darn clear!

Shalom,
Tanja

Vhayes
Jun 6th 2008, 04:55 PM
Are you going to answer my question?
Sorry, I thought I had.

Heaven and earth are still here - but please, look at the verse again:

Matthew 5

17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

I respectfully submit to you that far more than a small letter or a stroke HAS passed from the Law because it was fulfilled.

Do you feel the entire Law is still in standing, inclusing all the strokes and small letters?

theleast
Jun 6th 2008, 04:57 PM
There is no point to debate this any further.

I choose the doctrine of God.

I will now take my leave of this thread.

Go in peace.

Slug1
Jun 6th 2008, 04:58 PM
Not only do I eat rabbit and pig but I hunt them as well.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 04:59 PM
Wow, so what you are saying is that it only took on generation before all of Christendom got derailed and never got back on track.

Maybe more than one generation, but essentially yes, it took very little time before it all got off track.
Tell me when was the truth not ever severely suppressed? Is that then such a huge suprise?

Shalom,
Tanja

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 05:02 PM
Not only do I eat rabbit and pig but I hunt them as well.That's all your choice. But what do you make of this passage?

Isa 66:16 For by fire will the LORD enter into judgment, and by his sword, with all flesh; and those slain by the LORD shall be many.
Isa 66:17 "Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating pig's flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, declares the LORD.

If the dietary Law no longer is important, then why is it important enough for God to make sure the eating of pig's flesh and abomination etc will all come to an end?

Shalom,
Tanja

diffangle
Jun 6th 2008, 05:11 PM
The NT doesn't annul the OT... it expounds on it.

I never said anything about "annul". The OT has been completed with Jesus' utterance of "It is FInished". The New is what is currently in effect.

Yahushua Himself says that the Law will not pass until heaven and earth have so when He said it is finished He was not talking about the Law.



Please show me where adult male circumcision is required of a gentile believer post-Sinai.

I am not sure what you are asking. However, any convert to the Old Covenant (commonly called "Judaism") requires circumcison. Indeed, that was part of the quesiton on the table at the Council of Jerusalem. Those male gentile converts wanted to avoid circumcision for obvious reasons!

You're assuming that just b/c they were discussing whether or not gentiles should be circumcised that it must be a OT requirement... as far as I know, I have not seen where a adult gentile is required to be circumcised post-Sinai, so I'm asking you to provide that verse. They were dealing with a rabbinical element at the council. Are you familiar with the differences of rabbinical laws verses YHWH's laws?



There are many verses in the Torah that says theat one law shall be for all.

All Israelites, not gentiles.

Exd 12:49 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&c=12&v=49&t=KJV#49)One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger(gentile) that sojourneth among you.

Lev 24:22 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=24&v=22&t=KJV#22)Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger(gentile), as for one of your own country: for I [am] YHWH your God.

http://cf.blb.org/gifs/copyChkboxOff.gifNum 15:16 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Num&c=15&v=16&t=KJV#16)One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger(gentile) that sojourneth with you.

Num 15:29 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Num&c=15&v=29&t=KJV#29)Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, [both for] him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger(gentile) that sojourneth among them.





Why bother telling gentiles to abstain from blood, things strangled, sacrificed to idols, and fornication if the OT doesn't apply to gentiles?

I mentioned this in another post. The covenant with Noah was expressly universal so these things may apply.

Why is the covenant with Noah universal but not the rest of His instructions(all those verses I posted above say otherwise)?



You must put some thought into not disregarding our Creators instructions for His people. Were Abraham, Isaac, Job, Ruth "Jews"? There are many verses that speak of there being one law for all.

These folks were specifically under a Covenant with God. Abraham and Isaac were obviously under the Law.

But Abraham and Isaac weren't Jews... I thought you said that the law was only for the Jews.


[quote]Job is a mystery.


Not really when you understand that YHWH's law is for Jew and gentile just as the verses I posted state.




Ruth is a convert into the Law. So, no they are all under express Covenant terms. The average gentile is not.

Please provide Scripture that shows that Ruth was a "convert".

Slug1
Jun 6th 2008, 05:11 PM
That's all your choice. but what do you make of this passage?

Isa 66:16 For by fire will the LORD enter into judgment, and by his sword, with all flesh; and those slain by the LORD shall be many.
Isa 66:17 "Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating pig's flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, declares the LORD.

If the dietary Law no longer is important, then why is it important enough for God to make sure it will all come to an end?

Shalom,
TanjaThe first thing that comes to mind is the vision (Acts 10) that God gave Simon Peter when He showed him that eating all the creatures of the earth is acceptable to help him understand that all the people of the earth... both Jew and Gentile, are accepted by God. This may have been brought up in this thread already... still reading through it all.

I don't have my Bible where I have all this in notes so that's is all I want to bring up with scripture referance.

God clearly issued in the New Covenent with Jesus' death/ressurection. If you are led to follow the OT then I see no problem with that... I still don't understand how Christian's pick and choose between the OT/NT cause if your follow the OT then... as I always ask, why aren't you sacrificing animals for forgiveness of sin. Which is another topic so let's not spiral to much from this topic.

I eat meat cause Jesus and the Apostles who taught with the lead of the Holy Spirit say I can.

fewarechosen
Jun 6th 2008, 05:14 PM
one last post before i leave this thread also


17Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

now some are gonna say well yea he was talking about washing hands and thats not the same as what you eat and ... .... ....

just notice what what christ says defiles a man and where it comes from

go in peace my prayers are with you

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 05:21 PM
Nothing more than what Peter himself said the vision was about in Verse 28

Act 10:28 And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.

Peter says the vision was about people, not the food...that's pretty darn clear!

Shalom,
Tanja

With due respect, this is an absurd interpretation.

I note you did not cite this passage immediately before:
10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." 14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." 15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

It is clear that God and Peter were discussing what to EAT. God told him the so-called "impure" foods are now pure/

Zack702
Jun 6th 2008, 05:22 PM
If one is unclean and they are meek are they not healed by God at even?

Here and now I give thanks for this healing that what makes one unclean can pass and one can be saved by the great wonders of the body and spirit.

And I give great thanks that Jesus can help me and save me from my sins against God. My faith goes to this direction that I am not perfect nor is this meant to be but that I can rejoice in knowing that I am loved and well fed.

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 05:23 PM
Maybe more than one generation, but essentially yes, it took very little time before it all got off track.
Tell me when was the truth not ever severely suppressed? Is that then such a huge suprise?

Shalom,
Tanja

Yes it is a surprise. Jesus said the Gates of Hell would never prevail against his Church. What you are effectively saying is that God allowed his Church to totally fall away from the truth for hundreds of years. That is impossible and absurd. That adherants to the New Covenant have to comply with the Old is an innovation and not consistant with the Council of Jerusalem.

fewarechosen
Jun 6th 2008, 05:24 PM
If one is unclean and they are meek are they not healed by God at even?

Here and now I give thanks for this healing that what makes one unclean can pass and one can be saved by the great wonders of the body and spirit.

And I give great thanks that Jesus can help me and save me from my sins against God. My faith goes to this direction that I am not perfect nor is this meant to be but that I can rejoice in knowing that I am loved and well fed.


amen zack i think this is by far the best post in this thread, and i will give thanks with you as well

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 05:26 PM
[quote=diffangle;1663351]

No I do not personally know someone like that but my experience with such things is pretty slim.

There is a show on TV that specializes in catching and documenting adultery and there are many organizations that use decoy women to see if a man will try to cheat.

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 05:29 PM
Wow, so what you are saying is that it only took on generation before all of Christendom got derailed and never got back on track.

No, I said Paul's personal spirituality let him to be compliant. He never required it of his converts.

Paul didn't keep the law. He is the most vocal writer against the keeping of it as he writes to be freed from it and to be dead to it.

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 05:31 PM
Mat 5:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=5&verse=17&version=kjv#17) ¶Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Mat 5:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=5&verse=18&version=kjv#18)For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Have heaven and earth passed yet?

Till all be fulfilled is the key there. Once all was fulfilled, then even one jot of the law could change and we know a lot of the law has changed since the cross!


Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

If all had not been fulfilled then this change would not have been allowed. And this is but one of many changes to the law as a whole.

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 05:34 PM
Nothing more than what Peter himself said the vision was about in Verse 28

Act 10:28 And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.

Peter says the vision was about people, not the food...that's pretty darn clear!

Shalom,
Tanja

It's about both. God used the cleansing of unclean food into clean food to demonstrate that he could also cleanse people.

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 05:34 PM
[quote=diffangle;1663443][quote]

Yahushua Himself says that the Law will not pass until heaven and earth have so when He said it is finished He was not talking about the Law.


You're assuming that just b/c they were discussing whether or not gentiles should be circumcised that it must be a OT requirement... as far as I know, I have not seen where a adult gentile is required to be circumcised post-Sinai, so I'm asking you to provide that verse. They were dealing with a rabbinical element at the council. Are you familiar with the differences of rabbinical laws verses YHWH's laws?


Exd 12:49 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&c=12&v=49&t=KJV#49)One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger(gentile) that sojourneth among you.

Lev 24:22 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=24&v=22&t=KJV#22)Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger(gentile), as for one of your own country: for I [am] YHWH your God.

http://cf.blb.org/gifs/copyChkboxOff.gifNum 15:16 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Num&c=15&v=16&t=KJV#16)One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger(gentile) that sojourneth with you.

Num 15:29 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Num&c=15&v=29&t=KJV#29)Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, [both for] him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger(gentile) that sojourneth among them.


Why is the covenant with Noah universal but not the rest of His instructions(all those verses I posted above say otherwise)?

First, Noah's covenant is not specific to Noah and his family like the Mosaic Covenant is specific to the Israelites. It was also upheld at the Council of Jerusalem. Further, I stated this in another post, but it is worth repeating because you clearly do not understand some basic theological principles:
You have to be careful about plucking a verse out and then making a gross generlization, as you have done with the verses above. You have to put some thought into it. All throughout the Old Covenant there is an intense awareness of being an Israelitie and not a gentile. The Old Covenant takes great pains to prevent assimiliation and to foster seperateness for God's people. Thes verses address a gentile living among the Israelites. The law requires them to "do as the Romans do when in Rome" (if you would allow me to borrow this idiom). This ensures that the gentile does not infect the Israelites with his gentile ways. It also allows the gentile to receive the benefits of the just Law as gentile law was much more capricious and brutal.

But Abraham and Isaac weren't Jews... I thought you said that the law was only for the Jews.

If you look at how God has done things over the centuries, God works through the establishment of a Covenant with a specific group of people and the terms are specific to that group. God made a specific Covenant with Abraham and Isaac that was expanded upon with the Covenant with MOses. The people known as "Jews" or Israelites are derived from Abraham and Isaac. Although I am sure I do not have to spell out these basics to you.

Not really when you understand that YHWH's law is for Jew and gentile just as the verses I posted state.

No. Job simply is a mystery. It is unclear when he lived and under what Covenant he related to God. That is also not the point of the book.

Please provide Scripture that shows that Ruth was a "convert".

Seriously? That is one of the main points of the book that Ruth was a gentle. But, if you did not discern so obvious a fact here is the citation: Ruth 1:16.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 05:35 PM
Yes it is a surprise. Jesus said the Gates of Hell would never prevail against his Church. What you are effectively saying is that God allowed his Church to totally fall away from the truth for hundreds of years. That is impossible and absurd. That adherants to the New Covenant have to comply with the Old is an innovation and not consistant with the Council of Jerusalem.

This basically says that His church would never die, but not that it would be attacked.

What you said reminds me of this:

Mat 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.


And for you saying my interpretation is absurd.... I don't find it absurd at all, that God used the occasion as Peter was talking about food to use that as leverage to show Peter that Gentiles are not unclean. This was the issue during those days, that gentiles even despite converting whether they converted the Jewish way of the Messianic way were still considered unclean by many.

Shalom,
Tanja

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 05:38 PM
This basically says that His church would never die, but not that it would be attacked.

What you said reminds me of this:

Mat 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.


And for you saying my interpretation is absurd.... I don't find it absurd at all, that God used the occasion as Peter was talking about food to use that as leverage to show Peter that Gentiles are not unclean. This was the issue during those days, that gentiles even despite converting whether they converted the Jewish way of the Messianic way were still considered unclean by many.

Shalom,
Tanja


I see your citation there from Matthew. The problem is that you are basically saying that true observers of the Christian faith was reduced to zero until someone innovated your interpretation about 150 years ago. So, it, in effect, was dead for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Well when God said that the unclean foods were not clean what did he mean by that besides the obvious?

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 05:40 PM
It's about both. God used the cleansing of unclean food into clean food to demonstrate that he could also cleanse people.

God never declared unclean foods clean! In that sheet there were clean and unclean animals, showing a comingling of the two.
This is what God was trying to get across that what he declared clean was ok to be around. Not that suddenly you could eat the unclean food.
I would think if God wanted to declare unclean food clean and ready for consumption he could have shown Peter a roasted pig head ready to eat and told him that what he declared clean to not call common.
But none of these animals were prepared as food.

And i can't understand why anyone would refuse to see that the person who had the vision himself said that it was abouit comingling with Gentile believers.
If it had been about now being able to eat unclean foods he would have said so, but he never addressed that later.


Shalom,
Tanja

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 05:41 PM
[quote]
You're assuming that just b/c they were discussing whether or not gentiles should be circumcised that it must be a OT requirement... as far as I know, I have not seen where a adult gentile is required to be circumcised post-Sinai, so I'm asking you to provide that verse.

All males were to be circumcised according to the law. It doesn't say adults are excused from this if they are later converts.


Joshua 5:6 For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the people that were men of war, which came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they obeyed not the voice of the LORD: unto whom the LORD sware that he would not shew them the land, which the LORD sware unto their fathers that he would give us, a land that floweth with milk and honey.
Joshua 5:7 And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised: for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them by the way.

Here children not circumcised at the proper age were later circumcised because the law demanded all to be circumcised.

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 05:44 PM
God never declared unclean foods clean! In that sheet there were clean and unclean animals, showing a comingling of the two.
This is what God was trying to get across that what he declared clean was ok to be around. Not that suddenly you could eat the unclean food.
I would think if God wanted to declare unclean food clean and ready for consumption he could have shown Peter a roasted pig head ready to eat and told him that what he declared clean to not call common.
But none of these animals were prepared as food.

And i can't understand why anyone would refuse to see that the person who had the vision himself said that it was abouit comingling with Gentile believers.
If it had been about now being able to eat unclean foods he would have said so, but he never addressed that later.


Shalom,
Tanja


This reading of the passage is rather tortured and misses the forest for the trees. The plain language of the passage is clear. The passage states that Peter is HUNGRY and wants to EAT. God commands him to EAT an UNCLEAN ANIMAL and then says that the unclean animals ARE CLEAN.

I am not sure how much clearer you have to be.

The best evidence that the obvious view of this passage is the correct one is that EVERY generation of Christians from Acts 10 has eaten so-called "unclean" food. BY saying we cannot eat unclean food is to say that EVERY generation of Christians were wrong.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 05:48 PM
I see your citation there from Matthew. The problem is that you are basically saying that true observers of the Christian faith was reduced to zero until someone innovated your interpretation about 150 years ago. So, it, in effect, was dead for hundreds and hundreds of years.

It wasn't reduced to Zero, there are many things one can find even in the writings of the early church fathers who still wrote about stopping to celebrate the sabbath because it was still and continued to be observed by a small amount of people. Whereever these people were they were either excommunicated and or persecuted.

There are many groups of people who accepted Yeshua as the messiah and observed the feasts and the sabbath and the OT laws through the 2000 years. For example the Samaritans.
It's not just something that popped back up in the last 150 years. It's not a new movement.

Shalom,
Tanja

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 05:49 PM
This is what God was trying to get across that what he declared clean was ok to be around. Not that suddenly you could eat the unclean food.

To be around? When was it not ok to "be around" unclean animals?

However, it is about being able to eat unclean foods:


Acts 10:10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
Acts 10:11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
Acts 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
Acts 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

Kill and eat even the unclean animals.


Acts 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

Peter rejects this idea because all his life he obeyed the food laws that said some foods were "common" or "unclean" and that they should not be eaten as food.


Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.


But God says the animals are cleansed so that they are not "common" or "unclean" any longer. God commanded him to kill and eat even the unclean animals. The deeper lesson was about people being made clean but it begins with God's ability to also cleanse unclean foods. This is why we pray before eating that God will cleanse our food should be be unclean!

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 05:53 PM
This reading of the passage is rather tortured and misses the forest for the trees. The plain language of the passage is clear. The passage states that Peter is HUNGRY and wants to EAT. God commands him to EAT an UNCLEAN ANIMAL and then says that the unclean animals ARE CLEAN.

I am not sure how much clearer you have to be.

The best evidence that the obvious view of this passage is the correct one is that EVERY generation of Christians from Acts 10 has eaten so-called "unclean" food. BY saying we cannot eat unclean food is to say that EVERY generation of Christians were wrong.

Good grief.. Peter had not yet eaten and others were preparing food, do you not think if it really was about the food he would have said something rightaway? Or even later?

In Verse 28 it clearly shows why God sent Peter that vision, and not another word was said about it being about food also.......

I don't see anything contorted about the way i read the whole chapter.

Shalom,
Tanja

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 05:54 PM
It wasn't reduced to Zero, there are many things one can find even in the writings of the early church fathers who still wrote about stopping to celebrate the sabbath because it was still and continued to be observed by a small amount of people. Whereever these people were they were either excommunicated and or persecuted.

There are many groups of people who accepted Yeshua as the messiah and observed the feasts and the sabbath and the OT laws through the 2000 years. For example the Samaritans.
It's not just something that popped back up in the last 150 years. It's not a new movement.

Shalom,
Tanja

Assuming you are correct, the reason why it is so small is that requiring this sort of practice was declared to be not within the scope of Christianity as of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 or so. They were rightly excommunicated for their open contradiction of a clear teaching of the Christian Church.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 05:55 PM
Naphal,

this is no longer edifying as i can see that you're stuck in your assumptions and belief, despite that the scriptures point to the contrary.

We'll just have to come to the conclusion that we both cannot agree on this topic and it's been hashed and rehashed tons of times.

Shalom,
Tanja

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 05:56 PM
Good grief.. Peter had not yet eaten and others were preparing food, do you not think if it really was about the food he would have said something rightaway? Or even later?

In Verse 28 it clearly shows why God sent Peter that vision, and not another word was said about it being about food also.......

I don't see anything contorted about the way i read the whole chapter.

Shalom,
Tanja

So, when God told Peter to eat the unclean animals he was commanding Peter to sin?

By the way, verse 28 does not exclude the obvious reading of the passage. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 06:06 PM
So, when God told Peter to eat the unclean animals he was commanding Peter to sin?No God was showing Peter that he should not consider the Gentile believers unclean as per verse 28!

"You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation,

but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.

You see the Law forbids to eat unclean meat, and therefore it greatly puzzled Peter, and he knew the vision could not actually be about eating unclean food.

So as per verse 28 it became clear to him, as God said "what i have made clean do not call common.....
Past tense, what i have made clean.... so where in the past did God ever make unclean animals clean.... so in turn Peter realized the only thing God ever made clean was Gentiles who came to Messiah and attached themselves to Israel.

If anyone wants to rip verses out of context to justify any belief then go ahead, it's not my choice. However, that's exactly what the early church fathers did.

Shalom,
Tanja

VerticalReality
Jun 6th 2008, 06:10 PM
So God can make the man clean but not the animal? Why not use another vision? Or why not just say, "God has made gentiles clean."

Buck shot
Jun 6th 2008, 06:10 PM
This post grew fast!

I just had a corndog, I wonder what was in it :eek:

VerticalReality
Jun 6th 2008, 06:11 PM
I just had a corndog, I wonder what was in it :eek:

An abundance of different things!:lol:

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 06:13 PM
No God was showing Peter that he should not consider the Gentile believers unclean as per verse 28!

"You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation,

but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.

You see the Law forbids to eat unclean meat, and therefore it greatly puzzled Peter, and he knew the vision could not actually be about eating unclean food.

So as per verse 28 it became clear to him, as God said "what i have made clean do not call common.....
Past tense, what i have made clean.... so where in the past did God ever make unclean animals clean.... so in turn Peter realized the only thing God ever made clean was Gentiles who came to Messiah and attached themselves to Israel.

If anyone wants to rip verses out of context to justify any belief then go ahead, it's not my choice. However, that's exactly what the early church fathers did.

Shalom,
Tanja

There are no church fathers who support your position.

So, you deny that God told Peter to eat unclean animals? Did he not say "eat"?

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 06:27 PM
Yes, he told him to eat, which is the same as partake of....I do not deny that, but the Man himself explained the vision... what more do you want? He never said "come now, we can eat any food we want God said so" Rather he said "God has showen me...."

Anyway seamus, this isn't going anywhere...so i'm not going to beat this horse any longer.

I don't care for the support of men, but rather the support of God.

Shalom,
Tanja

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 06:28 PM
This post grew fast!

I just had a corndog, I wonder what was in it :eek:

Or what wasn't in it lol

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 06:30 PM
Yes, he told him to eat, which is the same as partake of....I do not deny that, but the Man himself explained the vision... what more do you want? He never said "come now, we can eat any food we want God said so" Rather he said "God has showen me...."

Lets make it simpler. Can God take an unclean man and make him clean? Can God take an unclean animal and make it clean?

Slug1
Jun 6th 2008, 06:31 PM
This post grew fast!

I just had a corndog, I wonder what was in it :eek:
Hunting corndogs I see :lol:

timmyb
Jun 6th 2008, 06:36 PM
was the corndog kosher? :D

all things are lawful... not all things are beneficial... food is food... it's eaten and cast off... it's nothing to haggle over...

rabbit is tough... and i love bacon and some honey cured ham

Buck shot
Jun 6th 2008, 06:52 PM
I did not mean to derail the thread with my corndogs but it did make me wonder.

To myself it is more of what you were brought up with. We do not practice circumcision as a law from the the Lord today why? Because our ancestors were saved while being uncircumcised and then did not have to change that. They were also eating pork and rabbits, which they were not taught to change as far as we know in the scripture. So why today would we be yoked with laws that are not given from God to us?

I do not agree that the Old Test was not written for the gentiles also. We (the gentiles) were grafted into God's family. I do not think they were told to change their eating habits once they were grafted in. In my opinion, Paul let us know we are to not be a stumbling block for others that do not agree with this. This is why I would never put pork chops on the pit when a seventh day adventist is coming to eat supper with us. (yes we do have some SDA friends even though we do not agree with a lot of their teachings, they could change :P)

crawfish
Jun 6th 2008, 07:07 PM
This post grew fast!

I just had a corndog, I wonder what was in it :eek:

Yummy and delicious. Just add mustard. :)

Slug1
Jun 6th 2008, 07:10 PM
I did not mean to derail the thread with my corndogs but it did make me wonder.

To myself it is more of what you were brought up with. We do not practice circumcision as a law from the the Lord today why? Because our ancestors were saved while being uncircumcised and then did not have to change that. They were also eating pork and rabbits, which they were not taught to change as far as we know in the scripture. So why today would we be yoked with laws that are not given from God to us?

I do not agree that the Old Test was not written for the gentiles also. We (the gentiles) were grafted into God's family. I do not think they were told to change their eating habits once they were grafted in. In my opinion, Paul let us know we are to not be a stumbling block for others that do not agree with this. This is why I would never put pork chops on the pit when a seventh day adventist is coming to eat supper with us. (yes we do have some SDA friends even though we do not agree with a lot of their teachings, they could change :P)I agree but I'm always confused by those who do follow the parts of the OT that they like and ignore the parts they don't like.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 07:41 PM
I do not agree that the Old Test was not written for the gentiles also. We (the gentiles) were grafted into God's family. I do not think they were told to change their eating habits once they were grafted in.

Ok, then why not rip the entire OT from your bible or at least the first 5 books which are the Torah?

Wouldn't any of you agree that the Gentiles still required a circumcision of the heart?

Now why would God circumcise the Gentiles with different laws than he gave to his people the Jews first?

Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Heb 8:10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Shalom,
Tanja

VerticalReality
Jun 6th 2008, 07:48 PM
Ok, then why not rip the entire OT from your bible or at least the first 5 books which are the Torah?

Wouldn't any of you agree that the Gentiles still required a circumcision of the heart?

Now why would God circumcise the Gentiles with different laws than he gave to his people the Jews first?

Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Heb 8:10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Shalom,
Tanja

But the law never circumsized the heart . . .

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 07:50 PM
Ok, then why not rip the entire OT from your bible or at least the first 5 books which are the Torah?

Wouldn't any of you agree that the Gentiles still required a circumcision of the heart?

Now why would God circumcise the Gentiles with different laws than he gave to his people the Jews first?

Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Heb 8:10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Shalom,
Tanja

Notice in both of your citations above it says "covenant that I will make with the house of Israel" - NOT with the gentiles.

Let me ask, do you:
--eat cheeseburgers?
--wear clothes of mixed cloth?
--use electricity or cook on Saturdays?
--carry things outside on Saturdays?
--drive on Saturdays?
--do you eat at typical resturants?

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 07:52 PM
Now why would God circumcise the Gentiles with different laws than he gave to his people the Jews first?

The same reason he created a new covenant built on better promises.

Buck shot
Jun 6th 2008, 08:03 PM
I do not agree that the Old Test was not written for the gentiles also. We (the gentiles) were grafted into God's family. I do not think they were told to change their eating habits once they were grafted in. Ok, then why not rip the entire OT from your bible or at least the first 5 books which are the Torah?

Shalom,
Tanja

I think you misunderstood me sister. I believe the Old Test is is needed for all of us. I cannot even fathom the thought of ripping any part of God's word up. As a matter of fact I don't even allow something else to be stacked on top of a Bible, not even my NIV and some of you know what I think of some of the interpretations within it. It's still a Bible.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 08:14 PM
But the law never circumcized the heart . . .
Oh, really? God commanded the people, His people in the OT:

Deu 10:12 So now, O Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you? Only to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul,
Deu 10:13 and to keep the commandments of the Lord your God and his decrees that I am commanding you today, for your own well-being.
Deu 10:14 Although heaven and the heaven of heavens belong to the Lord your God, the earth with all that is in it,
Deu 10:15 yet the Lord set his heart in love on your ancestors alone and chose you, their descendants after them, out of all the peoples, as it is today.
Deu 10:16 Circumcise, then, the foreskin of your heart, and do not be stubborn any longer.

What do you then propose circumcises your heart?



Notice in both of your citations above it says "covenant that I will make with the house of Israel" - NOT with the gentiles.That's fine if you don't consider yourself of the covenant of Israel, i just know i do!
I cannot ignore certain scriptures in the OT that are in line with the NT to show that both are equal in the covenant:

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.



The same reason he created a new covenant built on better promises.Looking at scriptures at all the covenants God made with different people, i never see God cancelling something out when he made something new. rather i see God building upon it.

Or would you say God has cancelled the covenant He made with Noah? Has he cancelled the covenant He made with Abraham?
The way i see it even through creation, is that God always built upon something He'd already put in existence, thus man was formed out of the dust of the earth, etc.....

No, if anything He renewed it, with a better promise..

Shalom,
Tanja

Shalom,
Tanja

seamus414
Jun 6th 2008, 08:19 PM
That's fine if you don't consider yourself of the covenant of Israel, i just know i do!
I cannot ignore certain scriptures in the OT that are in line with the NT to show that both are equal in the covenant:

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

It is clear that under the *NEW* covenant there is neither Jew nor Greek. Uner the Old Covenant, as your own citations indicate, there is ONLY Israel.

You did not answer my questions:
Let me ask, do you:
--eat cheeseburgers?
--wear clothes of mixed cloth?
--use electricity or cook on Saturdays?
--carry things outside on Saturdays?
--drive on Saturdays?
--do you eat at typical resturants?

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 08:25 PM
I think you misunderstood me sister. I believe the Old Test is is needed for all of us. I cannot even fathom the thought of ripping any part of God's word up. As a matter of fact I don't even allow something else to be stacked on top of a Bible, not even my NIV and some of you know what I think of some of the interpretations within it. It's still a Bible.

Ouch, i appologize. I overlooked a tiny word "not"
I appreciate your reverence for the Word and the way you see the verses.

I just get tired of people accusing us of dismissing/overlooking certain scriptures, as well as context. It bothers me when the OT gets dismissed as abrogated because it is the foundation and very much needed for us today.

Shalom,
Tanja

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 09:45 PM
It is clear that under the *NEW* covenant there is neither Jew nor Greek. Uner the Old Covenant, as your own citations indicate, there is ONLY Israel.ONLY Israel which included the Jew which is the native and the stranger.... So they were two different people considered alike with one Law to live by the same rules and commandments.
But it's moot for me to point that out as you won't acknowledge that.


You did not answer my questions:
Let me ask, do you:
--eat cheeseburgers?
Not anymore, though i did for a while even after coming to my beliefs but after more delving into this i decided not to. It's about mixing meat which is dead with something made out of milk which sustains life. The two just don't mix.
--wear clothes of mixed cloth?
Try not to anymore I'm still learning and i'm starting to pay more attention to this.
--use electricity or cook on Saturdays?
I try to prepare all food on Friday before sabbath starts....
As for electricity, if it's already turned on it's constant like an already established fire, kept going with sticks. Why do you think the israelites gathered twice as much before the Sabbath, not just food but also the means to prepare it?
--carry things outside on Saturdays?
I do not adhere to the man made restrictions the Pharisees added, i carry stuff, but i do not labor as in making a living....
--drive on Saturdays?
I try not to, but i will go to synagogue on sabbath, and since we live so far out in the sticks i cannot walk to synagogue. It's too far.
--do you eat at typical resturants?
If i do, i will not eat pork or anything that possible is known to have pork in it.
I also do not eat shellfish...
I used to eat all that stuff til God showed me what He wanted me to do.
Anyways, i gave you an answer cause you asked... now don't bother judging me for it.

Shalom,
Tanja

BHS
Jun 6th 2008, 09:54 PM
I am jumping in here to say that I do not eat rabbit, pork or shellfish!

What I find most distasteful is those who make jokes of eating whatever they want -- I am not judging -- I know that it is your conviction vs. my own. But to me it isn't any different than someone joking and bragging about some other thing they do that God has explicitly said not to do. Please think about it. Selah.

BHS

Vhayes
Jun 6th 2008, 10:01 PM
And can you not see that it is just as distateful for those of us who believe Christ set us free from the Law when you tell us we are to still live under the Law.

Galatians 3
19 - Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
SELAH

And peace to you - and I sincerely mean that.

daughter
Jun 6th 2008, 10:02 PM
Thank you BHS... I also find it painful when others joke about their "freedom" in such a way that it makes me cringe.

I'm actually here to say that every time I see the title thread, it makes me feel a bit poorly... because on Tuesday I found a rabbit hopping down the road, and he's currently in the room with me. The idea of anyone eating him makes me really sad! It's not just because he's such a tame and friendly rabbit... it's also because God made him, and people take the lives of the animals they eat so lightly most of the time.

I know that we can eat whatever we want to, really... if we have to. But I wonder how many of us have ever looked at a cow, or a rabbit, or a pig, and thought... wow, how creative and wildly inventive God is! Look at that... I mean, just look! Such perfection of detail and design...

It's another perspective I know, and not what the OP was thinking of... but how many of us, if we do eat animals, do so prayerfully, respectfully, thanking God for what He's done?

The only person I know who truly eats like that is my son (who's vegan) who often says spontaneous graces five or six times in a meal, and only ever eats when he's hungry - and thoroughly enjoys every bite.

Do we eat to the Lord, and fast to the Lord... regardless of what we eat?

And do we look at pigs and rabbits and praise the God who made them?

VerticalReality
Jun 6th 2008, 10:29 PM
Oh, really? God commanded the people, His people in the OT:

Deu 10:12 So now, O Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you? Only to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul,
Deu 10:13 and to keep the commandments of the Lord your God and his decrees that I am commanding you today, for your own well-being.
Deu 10:14 Although heaven and the heaven of heavens belong to the Lord your God, the earth with all that is in it,
Deu 10:15 yet the Lord set his heart in love on your ancestors alone and chose you, their descendants after them, out of all the peoples, as it is today.
Deu 10:16 Circumcise, then, the foreskin of your heart, and do not be stubborn any longer.

What do you then propose circumcises your heart?

Oh yes, really.

There were many folks, including the Pharisees, who kept law but did not have a circumcised heart. All one has to do is read the bible to see that. Why do you argue such a clear truth in the Scriptures?

It is not the law here in Deuteronomy 10 that circumcises hearts. The Spirit is the only thing that can circumcise a man's heart, and that is through faith and faith alone. That's one of the most basic and clear foundational teachings of Christianity.

BHS
Jun 6th 2008, 10:29 PM
And can you not see that it is just as distateful for those of us who believe Christ set us free from the Law when you tell us we are to still live under the Law.

Galatians 3
19 - Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
SELAH

And peace to you - and I sincerely mean that.

No I can't see that, because we do not joke about your conviction or the Word of God, regardless of how it is interpreted.

Shalom -- and I sincerely mean that, too -- that whatever is broken will be fixed and made whole.
BHS

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 10:29 PM
As for electricity, if it's already turned on it's constant like an already established fire, kept going with sticks. Why do you think the israelites gathered twice as much before the Sabbath, not just food but also the means to prepare it?

Where is it written that they gathered extra sticks for Sabbath fires? In the Hebrew it was against the law to have a fire burning at all.

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 10:33 PM
There is nothing wrong with some friendly jokes about hotdogs or the like as it makes a much better mood than what often occurs. What is wrong is judging each other for what we eat or don't eat. So far I have not seen anyone judged for not eating certain meats but I have seen some judging about those who eat quote-unquote "unclean" meats as if they are still unclean. If it's unclean to you, then that's fine but no one can say it's unclean for anyone else or that it's unhealthy or wrong.

Vhayes
Jun 6th 2008, 10:45 PM
No I can't see that, because we do not joke about your conviction or the Word of God, regardless of how it is interpreted.

Shalom -- and I sincerely mean that, too -- that whatever is broken will be fixed and made whole.
BHS

You (generic you) may not "joke" about it but (generic) you certainly tell us we read scripture wrong. THAT'S the part that's distatsteful, at least to me; it's as though (generic) you are saying there have been 2000 years of people who have spent their lives dedicated to studying scripture, asking for guidance from the Holy Spirit and not a single one of them got something so intrinsic right.

What do you believe the scripture I posted means?

Thank you for discussing -
V

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 10:53 PM
Lets make it simpler. Can God take an unclean man and make him clean? Can God take an unclean animal and make it clean?

Does anyone want to answer this since it is going unanswered? Any takers? Thanks!

And just as a refresher:

Rom 14:1 Welcome all the Lord's followers, even those whose faith is weak. Don't criticize them for having beliefs that are different from yours.
Rom 14:2 Some think it is all right to eat anything, while those whose faith is weak will eat only vegetables.
Rom 14:3 But you should not criticize others for eating or for not eating. After all, God welcomes everyone.
Rom 14:4 What right do you have to criticize someone else's servants? Only their Lord can decide if they are doing right, and the Lord will make sure that they do right.
Rom 14:5 Some of the Lord's followers think one day is more important than another. Others think all days are the same. But each of you should make up your own mind.
Rom 14:6 Any followers who count one day more important than another day do it to honor their Lord. And any followers who eat meat give thanks to God, just like the ones who don't eat meat.
Rom 14:7 Whether we live or die, it must be for God, rather than for ourselves.
Rom 14:8 Whether we live or die, it must be for the Lord. Alive or dead, we still belong to the Lord.
Rom 14:9 This is because Christ died and rose to life, so that he would be the Lord of the dead and of the living.
Rom 14:10 Why do you criticize other followers of the Lord? Why do you look down on them? The day is coming when God will judge all of us.
Rom 14:11 In the Scriptures God says, "I swear by my very life that everyone will kneel down and praise my name!"
Rom 14:12 And so, each of us must give an account to God for what we do.
Rom 14:13 We must stop judging others. We must also make up our minds not to upset anyone's faith.
Rom 14:14 The Lord Jesus has made it clear to me that God considers all foods fit to eat. But if you think some foods are unfit to eat, then for you they are not fit.
Rom 14:15 If you are hurting others by the foods you eat, you are not guided by love. Don't let your appetite destroy someone Christ died for.
Rom 14:16 Don't let your right to eat bring shame to Christ.
Rom 14:17 God's kingdom isn't about eating and drinking. It is about pleasing God, about living in peace, and about true happiness. All this comes from the Holy Spirit.
Rom 14:18 If you serve Christ in this way, you will please God and be respected by people.
Rom 14:19 We should try to live at peace and help each other have a strong faith.
Rom 14:20 Don't let your appetite destroy what God has done. All foods are fit to eat, but it is wrong to cause problems for others by what you eat.
Rom 14:21 It is best not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything else that causes problems for other followers of the Lord.
Rom 14:22 What you believe about these things should be kept between you and God. You are fortunate, if your actions don't make you have doubts.
Rom 14:23 But if you do have doubts about what you eat, you are going against your beliefs. And you know that is wrong, because anything you do against your beliefs is sin.

Gotta love Paul!

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 10:57 PM
Oh yes, really.

There were many folks, including the Pharisees, who kept law but did not have a circumcised heart. All one has to do is read the bible to see that. Why do you argue such a clear truth in the Scriptures?

The Holy Spirit circumcises you heart. Allright i agree, but what exactly does He write on your heart? Is it not the law?

The way i see it is the the Holy Spirit writes the Law of God into your heart.

What esle would he write into your heart, something contrary to that?

I'm argueing for the truth, btw. not against it.


That's one of the most basic and clear foundational teachings of Christianity.

Read the following:

Eph 6:17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,

So i suppose the Holy Spirit tells you to eat unclean food? Really, Has he told you this verbally, without a doubt?
Or is it rather just the reading of the scriptures that conmvinces you of that?


Shalom,
Tanja

daughter
Jun 6th 2008, 10:58 PM
There is nothing wrong with some friendly jokes about hotdogs or the like as it makes a much better mood than what often occurs. What is wrong is judging each other for what we eat or don't eat. So far I have not seen anyone judged for not eating certain meats but I have seen some judging about those who eat quote-unquote "unclean" meats as if they are still unclean. If it's unclean to you, then that's fine but no one can say it's unclean for anyone else or that it's unhealthy or wrong.
On this thread nobody is being judged for not eating meats... but I've been judged for being vegan, in some quite astonishing ways, by other Christians. The point is, everyone can be very judgemental about what ever we perceive as being the "letter" of the law, or the meaning of the text.

Rather than be asking "do you eat such and such an animal", we should be thinking about HOW we eat... do we eat to His glory? If so, then we are fine.

Each one of us is judged by our own consciences, nobody else's. So Virg has freedom to eat what she likes, and doesn't need anyone telling her that she doesn't. I'm free to be vegan, and don't need anyone telling me that I'm worshipping the created rather than the creator (I've heard that so often this last six months! It's a wonder any vegan ever converts in some circles, I must say!) Someone who eats some meat, but only if its kosher doesn't need to be called a Judaizer.

We should simply accept that the Spirit has convicted us differently, and that we all serve God in our different ways. "Who am I to judge another mans' servant?"

If we're servants of God... and we are... then we serve HIM, not each other's expectations of what service should look like.

So... there's nothing to discuss. We all have freedom, in matters of food, to worship as we will.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 11:00 PM
Where is it written that they gathered extra sticks for Sabbath fires? In the Hebrew it was against the law to have a fire burning at all.

Look at what the word to kindle means.

It means to start a fire, it does not mean to keep an existing fire burning. It means to make glow, etc....

1kin·dle Listen to the pronunciation of 1kindle
Pronunciation:
\ˈkin-dəl\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
kin·dled; kin·dling Listen to the pronunciation of kindling \ˈkin(d)-liŋ, ˈkin-dəl-iŋ\
Etymology:
Middle English, probably modification of Old Norse kynda; akin to Old High German ****esal fire
Date:
13th century

transitive verb1: to start (a fire) burning : light2 a: to stir up : arouse <kindle interest> b: to bring into being : start3: to cause to glow : illuminateintransitive verb1: to catch fire2 a: to flare up b: to become animated3: to become illuminated
— kin·dler Listen to the pronunciation of kindler \ˈkin(d)-lər, ˈkin-dəl-ər\ noun

There's no law saying you can't have fire on Sabbath or keep an already established fire going, but there is certainly a Law saying you cannot start a fire on Sabbath.

Shalom,
Tanja

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 11:07 PM
but I've been judged for being vegan, in some quite astonishing ways, by other Christians.

Well that is wrong. :) Trust me, when you tell people you eat pork and shellfish you can get judged in the same astonishing ways! Hey, some people just love to judge others...a true shame!





Rather than be asking "do you eat such and such an animal", we should be thinking about HOW we eat... do we eat to His glory? If so, then we are fine.

Well, the OP is about eating certain animals...I havent had rabbit but I love Pork :)

I think a different thread about how we eat would be nice.



Each one of us is judged by our own consciences, nobody else's. So Virg has freedom to eat what she likes, and doesn't need anyone telling her that she doesn't. I'm free to be vegan, and don't need anyone telling me that I'm worshipping the created rather than the creator (I've heard that so often this last six months! It's a wonder any vegan ever converts in some circles, I must say!) Someone who eats some meat, but only if its kosher doesn't need to be called a Judaizer.

Yes I agree with you on that and I am sure you agree that no one should say eating pork or rabbit is against the law or sinful or unhealthy or wrong and it is offensive to have someone say if we also think eating human beings is ok! That is judgemental and immature in the least but it's occurred in this thread...

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 11:10 PM
Look at what the word to kindle means.

It means to start a fire, it does not mean to keep an existing fire burning. It means to make glow, etc....

1kin·dle Listen to the pronunciation of 1kindle
Pronunciation:
\ˈkin-dəl\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
kin·dled; kin·dling Listen to the pronunciation of kindling \ˈkin(d)-liŋ, ˈkin-dəl-iŋ\
Etymology:
Middle English, probably modification of Old Norse kynda; akin to Old High German ****esal fire
Date:
13th century

transitive verb1: to start (a fire) burning : light2 a: to stir up : arouse <kindle interest> b: to bring into being : start3: to cause to glow : illuminateintransitive verb1: to catch fire2 a: to flare up b: to become animated3: to become illuminated
— kin·dler Listen to the pronunciation of kindler \ˈkin(d)-lər, ˈkin-dəl-ər\ noun

There's no law saying you can't have fire on Sabbath or keep an already established fire going, but there is certainly a Law saying you cannot start a fire on Sabbath.

Shalom,
Tanja

I don't want to derail the thread. I'll just quickly say that the Hebrew word means both to start from nothing or to kindle existing fire into more fire. The point is that God did not want the people to have fires in their homes etc on the Sabbath. The only exception was the fire on the alter that was to never stop burning and that was for offerings commanded by God but other fires were prohibited.

Zack702
Jun 6th 2008, 11:37 PM
No I can't see that, because we do not joke about your conviction or the Word of God, regardless of how it is interpreted.

Shalom -- and I sincerely mean that, too -- that whatever is broken will be fixed and made whole.
BHS

Hello BHS if you have refrained from eating these things because of The Lord and in truth you wanted to eat them then you should be commended for this sacrifice. It is my hope that God finds pleasure in what we do and that we find pleasure in what God has done.

Some of us would eat a pig fed with meat scraps but there are some of us who would not eat a pig fed with honey. But we should still love one another and to that I owe you a apology if you are offended.

VerticalReality
Jun 7th 2008, 01:25 AM
The Holy Spirit circumcises you heart. Allright i agree, but what exactly does He write on your heart? Is it not the law?

The way i see it is the the Holy Spirit writes the Law of God into your heart.

What esle would he write into your heart, something contrary to that?

I'm argueing for the truth, btw. not against it.

I'm all for viewing the Scriptures literally, but I view this sort of belief as hyper-literalism. The Holy Spirit is not literally taking a pen or something and writing the Ten Commandments on someone's heart. The Spirit is simply transforming the desires of the heart to come in line with the righteousness of God. So, no longer do I not want to commit adultery because some law says so, but rather I don't want to commit adultery because it's the good, right and holy thing to do and I want to please the Father. That's the Spirit of the law and not the letter. In the beginning there was no need for a law, and Jesus came to restore "in the beginning". It's the heart that is deceitfully wicked, and the only thing that will change that is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. What about eating something is wickedness? That was Jesus' entire point when He stated that it is not what goes in a man that defiles him. It's the heart that is wicked. The heart is what needs to be transformed. Refraining from eating a pig is not what is going to transform a heart. The dietary laws were a shadow of a deeper truth, and it's unfortunate that so many seem to miss it because they are so focused on keeping the letter.

The fact that it is not the law that circumcises your heart should be enough to show you that your keeping it doesn't do you a bit of good in God's eyes. Why? Well . . . because you can't keep it. Your posts remind me so much of Romans 10:1-4

Romans 10:1-4
Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

People always say that God gave the law to show people His standard for them. However, I do not believe this is true at all. I believe God gave the law simply to show us that our performance just isn't good enough. The law is to show us that our works are as filthy rags.


So i suppose the Holy Spirit tells you to eat unclean food? Really, Has he told you this verbally, without a doubt?

The Holy Spirit has not told me what to eat or what not to eat. Why wasn't this one of the first things the Spirit dealt with me about like He did with lying, cursing, fornication, lust, drunkenness, and so on? Nobody comes to Christ and immediately says, "Man, I'm not supposed to eat pork!"

Nope. Men have to teach them such things. Folks get saved, and then they begin surrounding themselves with all sorts of teachers who speak about this and that being unclean and disapproved of by God, and so on. Then they say it was the Spirit that "enlightened" them to these truths and all Christians for the past 2,000 years who haven't practiced these things are wrong and are in danger of judgment.

Legalism.

VerticalReality
Jun 7th 2008, 01:27 AM
On this thread nobody is being judged for not eating meats... but I've been judged for being vegan, in some quite astonishing ways, by other Christians. The point is, everyone can be very judgemental about what ever we perceive as being the "letter" of the law, or the meaning of the text.

Rather than be asking "do you eat such and such an animal", we should be thinking about HOW we eat... do we eat to His glory? If so, then we are fine.

Each one of us is judged by our own consciences, nobody else's. So Virg has freedom to eat what she likes, and doesn't need anyone telling her that she doesn't. I'm free to be vegan, and don't need anyone telling me that I'm worshipping the created rather than the creator (I've heard that so often this last six months! It's a wonder any vegan ever converts in some circles, I must say!) Someone who eats some meat, but only if its kosher doesn't need to be called a Judaizer.

We should simply accept that the Spirit has convicted us differently, and that we all serve God in our different ways. "Who am I to judge another mans' servant?"

If we're servants of God... and we are... then we serve HIM, not each other's expectations of what service should look like.

So... there's nothing to discuss. We all have freedom, in matters of food, to worship as we will.

Nothing wrong with this post at all. It's when folks start trying to establish laws (even laws they themselves can't keep) that it turns into a problem.

BHS
Jun 7th 2008, 01:35 AM
You (generic you) may not "joke" about it but (generic) you certainly tell us we read scripture wrong. THAT'S the part that's distatsteful, at least to me; it's as though (generic) you are saying there have been 2000 years of people who have spent their lives dedicated to studying scripture, asking for guidance from the Holy Spirit and not a single one of them got something so intrinsic right.

What do you believe the scripture I posted means?

Thank you for discussing -
V

Actually, in my studies I read the thoughts of OT scholars, who surprisingly, even though not "messianic", hold to many of the same concepts.

A key purpose of the commandments was to make the Israelites aware of their sin. The instructions given them contained commandments which they broke, as would any person who had a rebellious nature. They served the purpose of causing guilt so those who sinned would become repentant and seek forgiveness. "Until" does not mean these instructions no longer exist. It simply means that from the time of Moses until the coming of Jesus, it had a role of raising one's consciousness of having commited sin. For those who sin, even now that Jesus has come, it still serves this purpose.

BHS

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 7th 2008, 03:41 AM
The Holy Spirit has not told me what to eat or what not to eat. Why wasn't this one of the first things the Spirit dealt with me about like He did with lying, cursing, fornication, lust, drunkenness, and so on? Nobody comes to Christ and immediately says, "Man, I'm not supposed to eat pork!"

I'm not saying He should tell you to abstain from the unclean food first. Obviusly God knows what He's doing in you. I cannot judge that. And i'm glad if he hasn't convicted you on the food issue yet. I was simply wondering if God had done so at this point.


Nope. Men have to teach them such things. Folks get saved, and then they begin surrounding themselves with all sorts of teachers who speak about this and that being unclean and disapproved of by God, and so on. Then they say it was the Spirit that "enlightened" them to these truths and all Christians for the past 2,000 years who haven't practiced these things are wrong and are in danger of judgment.


Well i tell you no man taught me anything about the clean or unclean food, it was God Himself through the Spirit that taught me there was absolutely no man involved in that and the teaching of my needing to observe the sabbath.
My enlightenment came through God, and not man.

Infact i'd perviosuly thrown out all commentaries and books and such and none of them dealt with ANY of what God taight me after i sat down with the Word, and listened.


Legalism.
How my experience would equate to Legalism is beyond me.

Shalom,
Tanja

VerticalReality
Jun 7th 2008, 03:44 AM
How my experience would equate to Legalism is beyond me.

Shalom,
Tanja

What would you say you've gained having kept these laws you are promoting here that others who do not follow these ordinances have not?

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 7th 2008, 03:56 AM
Romans 10:1-4
Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

If i were to seek my own righteousness, i would not do what God had commanded in all his statues. I would do things my way and follow my will all the while claiming to do it in the Spirit of the righteousness of God, pointing to the Holy Spirit saying He's doing all the work......

Anyway, that's not even close to what the above verse is trying to say.
The above verse was about people who would like todays pastors would know to quote every scripture to the T, and say they are follwing it to the T, but yet missing the heartmatter of the Law by a kazillion miles.
This is what some Pharisees and especially the scribes were doing in Yeshua's day.

They were rejecting the Holy Spirit all the time.... they did not allow the Holy Spirit to circumcise and engrave the whole scope of any given law into their hearts and minds.

Shalom,
Tanja

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 7th 2008, 04:13 AM
What would you say you've gained having kept these laws you are promoting here that others who do not follow these ordinances have not?I don't know if anyone would feel like they are losing out, i cannot propose to know.
Nor can i propose to know at what stage anyone here is, to say what they should experience.

Now as for myself, and what i have gained from this:

Like a child that hears her father speak, and goes and does what the father says, i have full assurance of faith.
I have a knowing when i'm pleasing to Him.
Through the work God has done through me by His teaching i have the shield of Faith which will extinguish the fiery darts of the adversary.
I have an easier time discerning His will in any given situation, because i know His holiness and i try to follow that.`
I feel safe i'm sitting under His wing and instruction, knowing that His instructions are good and just and His commandments are Holy.

I boast in the Lord, and i'm not bragging, because i can't take any credit for it whatsoever.

Shalom,
Tanja

VerticalReality
Jun 7th 2008, 04:16 AM
If i were to seek my own righteousness, i would not do what God had commanded in all his statues. I would do things my way and follow my will all the while claiming to do it in the Spirit of the righteousness of God, pointing to the Holy Spirit saying He's doing all the work......

Anyway, that's not even close to what the above verse is trying to say.
The above verse was about people who would like todays pastors would know to quote every scripture to the T, and say they are follwing it to the T, but yet missing the heartmatter of the Law by a kazillion miles.
This is what some Pharisees and especially the scribes were doing in Yeshua's day.

They were rejecting the Holy Spirit all the time.... they did not allow the Holy Spirit to circumcise and engrave the whole scope of any given law into their hearts and minds.

Shalom,
Tanja

I do not agree. What's going on in Romans 10:1-4 is the Jews thinking they could keep law and measure up. They thought that their keeping of law got them something in the eyes of God. All the while they were ignorant of God's righteousness. How can our righteousness measure up to the perfect righteousness that is God's? I do not agree that the Jews were "trying to do things their way". I believe they were trying to do things the law way. But law never brought life, and there is a reason for that. Folks who try to keep the law are ignorant of God's righteousness. They are ignorant of His perfection and His perfect standard. The law was only to show man that there was no true righteousness in them because they couldn't keep the law that was given. The only righteousness that measures up is the righteousness of Jesus, so faith and faith alone in Christ's fulfilling work of the law is the only thing that will allow us to stand unashamed on that Day.

VerticalReality
Jun 7th 2008, 04:23 AM
Like a child that hears her father speak, and goes and does what the father says, i have full assurance of faith.
I have a knowing when i'm pleasing to Him.

And how is this different from other Christians who do not follow the same ordinances that you follow?


Through the work God has done through me by His teaching i have the shield of Faith which will extinguish the fiery darts of the adversary.

What fiery darts are being extinguished that aren't for those not keeping the ordinances you promote here?


I have an easier time discerning His will in any given situation, because i know His holiness and i try to follow that.`

You feel that your keeping of such things as dietary laws is what opens up this "easier time discerning"?

What about not eating certain types of flesh makes you more in tune with God's holiness? What about the eating of certain meats defiles a man?


I feel safe i'm sitting under His wing and instruction, knowing that His instructions are good and just and His commandments are Holy.

You feel safe trying to keep something you're not capable of? If I were trying to scale Mt. Everest I wouldn't feel too safe because I know that with my current skills there's no way I could do it.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 7th 2008, 04:28 AM
We'll have to disagree here.

You'll say this example doesn't compare, though i think it does.

How many here follow the Law of the land just cause they figure it's better to stay out of trouble, and just cause the law exists. This is group A


How many here would follow that same Law of the land because it's actually for our own good as well as the good of others. This group of people sees the deeper meaning and takes the Law to heart, and therefore they will adhere to the speed limit as an example, because they care about other people's lives as they care about their own.
This is group B

This means group B sees the Law not just as a mandate, but as the righteousness or holiness of the one that instituted it, and gave it for this reason, and asked them to be Holy as He is holy.

Shalom,
Tanja

BHS
Jun 7th 2008, 01:59 PM
Hello BHS if you have refrained from eating these things because of The Lord and in truth you wanted to eat them then you should be commended for this sacrifice. It is my hope that God finds pleasure in what we do and that we find pleasure in what God has done.

Some of us would eat a pig fed with meat scraps but there are some of us who would not eat a pig fed with honey. But we should still love one another and to that I owe you a apology if you are offended.

Zack, thank you for your sensitive and kind heart -- and apology. No, you have not offended me. And likewise, I hope I have not offended you. The instructions of the Lord were never meant to be offensive.

God bless,
BHS

Vhayes
Jun 7th 2008, 02:53 PM
Actually, in my studies I read the thoughts of OT scholars, who surprisingly, even though not "messianic", hold to many of the same concepts.

A key purpose of the commandments was to make the Israelites aware of their sin. The instructions given them contained commandments which they broke, as would any person who had a rebellious nature. They served the purpose of causing guilt so those who sinned would become repentant and seek forgiveness. "Until" does not mean these instructions no longer exist. It simply means that from the time of Moses until the coming of Jesus, it had a role of raising one's consciousness of having commited sin. For those who sin, even now that Jesus has come, it still serves this purpose.

BHS
Hi BHS and thank you for the post.

Yes, scholars do agree that the Law was to lead us to Christ – Paul says as much when he refers to the Law as a tutor.

I will respectfully disagree with you that “until” doesn’t mean “until”.

The verse reads:

Galatians 3
19 - </SPAN>Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

To me, the seed HAS come. Jesus came in the flesh.

And when you read the context of the chapter or even the entire epistle, it is clear to me that the Law served it’s purpose. Otherwise, why would Paul say:
Galatians 3
24 - </SPAN>Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
25 - </SPAN>But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

As far as the Law serving the purpose today of making someone feel guilty or convicting them of sin, maybe. But I don’t see how wearing a shirt made of two different fabrics would make a person feel anything at all.

I respect your right to follow Christ in whatever way you choose. I’m not about to tell you, or for that matter even imply, that I am more spiritual or more mature than are you because I follow my conscience and what I believe the Holy Spirit has taught me through the scriptures. I think we are all in a certain place in our growth and God will, in His good time, reveal to us individually what He would have us know. On the far side of that thought is the idea that I certainly don’t think people who live under the Law are more mature/spiritual/obedient than those of us who feel we live under the Law of Liberty and I will not hesitate to say that loud and clear when I hear living under the Law promoted.

I do appreciate the polite dialog.

Peace to you –
V

VerticalReality
Jun 7th 2008, 02:58 PM
We'll have to disagree here.

You'll say this example doesn't compare, though i think it does.

How many here follow the Law of the land just cause they figure it's better to stay out of trouble, and just cause the law exists. This is group A


How many here would follow that same Law of the land because it's actually for our own good as well as the good of others. This group of people sees the deeper meaning and takes the Law to heart, and therefore they will adhere to the speed limit as an example, because they care about other people's lives as they care about their own.
This is group B

This means group B sees the Law not just as a mandate, but as the righteousness or holiness of the one that instituted it, and gave it for this reason, and asked them to be Holy as He is holy.

Shalom,
Tanja

Now for group B . . .

. . . is there really a need for law?

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 7th 2008, 03:11 PM
Now for group B . . .

. . . is there really a need for law?

If there wasn't a Law, then what would Group B have for guideline of holiness?

Or are you proposing that Group B doesn't need to uphold the Law because they are above the Law? So they can now speed whenever they want, and not get punished?

Shalom,
Tanja

nzyr
Jun 7th 2008, 03:54 PM
The apostles Peter and Paul said we can eat anything we want. Except blood. And animals that have been strangled.

...if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. -Galatians 5:18

Christians don't have to be circumcised. And they don't have to eat a kosher diet.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 7th 2008, 04:02 PM
Answering a previous post:


What fiery darts are being extinguished that aren't for those not keeping the ordinances you promote here?

Let's say i was taken to court and accused of something i did wrong according to the law of God.
Let's say i went on the Sabbath and bought something from the store, to help someone else in need.
The devil would say She did wrong, she is deserving of hell.
God would say, she took care of someone in need, she's worthy of being covered in the blood of my son. End of discussion.

If i had gone to the store cause i wanted to on the sabbath to please myself and buying myself this huge Tv just cause i liked, the devil would say, what benefit did that Tv give to anyone, she bought it for herself.
Do you think Yeshua could truthfully say i acted right and say i am covering you with my blood?

Since you think this isn't of importance or valid, this example won't mean anything to you.

Heb 10:26 For if we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 Anyone who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy "on the testimony of two or three witnesses."
Heb 10:29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

Doesn't that remind anyone of what happened to Ananias and his wife Saphira?



You feel that your keeping of such things as dietary laws is what opens up this "easier time discerning"?

What about not eating certain types of flesh makes you more in tune with God's holiness? What about the eating of certain meats defiles a man?

No the discernment comes, because when one knows the will of God, then it's easier to discern what is not in line with the will of God. When one ignores the law, then that person won't know what God might expect when it comes down to it.

It's like a math problem, either you learn your stuff and you're prepared, or you don't, and then you won't know what to do when it's given to you.



You feel safe trying to keep something you're not capable of? If I were trying to scale Mt. Everest I wouldn't feel too safe because I know that with my current skills there's no way I could do it.
I'm not claiming to be capable of following the Law 100% like Yeshua did, but i do know that He who sustains me gives me a way out everythime. At the least because when i'm sincere i know that He will cover me with His blood.
Anyone who sincerely tries to find Him and His righteousness will be safe knowing he takes delight in obedience and is not provoked to wrath.

Shalom,
Tanja


Shalom

VerticalReality
Jun 7th 2008, 04:10 PM
If there wasn't a Law, then what would Group B have for guideline of holiness?

Our Father through His Spirit . . .

Did Adam have a law before He disobeyed God?


Or are you proposing that Group B doesn't need to uphold the Law because they are above the Law? So they can now speed whenever they want, and not get punished?

No. I'm saying that group won't speed. Therefore, there is no need for the law. The law is not for those who will obey. The law is for those who will not.

Yukerboy
Jun 7th 2008, 04:22 PM
:OFFT:

The question was, do you eat rabbit or pork?

The answer is, of course, pork.

Sorry, trying to throw a funny out there.

As I said before, the law to a Christian is still a kinda/sorta law. All things are lawful (all means all), but not all things are beneficial.

God's law is not a way to salvation, but a guide to conduct.

Yuke

VerticalReality
Jun 7th 2008, 04:26 PM
The devil would say She did wrong, she is deserving of hell.
God would say, she took care of someone in need, she's worthy of being covered in the blood of my son. End of discussion.

So by what you did you feel God views you as "worthy" of His Son? The Word says it's not by our works but by His grace through faith. There are all sorts of folks, including muslims, buddhists and so on, who do good for others. Are they now "worthy" also?



Since you think this isn't of importance or valid, this example won't mean anything to you.

Heb 10:26 For if we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 Anyone who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy "on the testimony of two or three witnesses."
Heb 10:29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?


And since everyone has violated the law of Moses, including yourself, you better not be thinking you can keep it and measure up. Additionally, someone who claims to be born again better not live in deliberate sin because they are under the law, as Paul so gracefully proclaims in Galatians 5.


No the discernment comes, because when one knows the will of God, then it's easier to discern what is not in line with the will of God. When one ignores the law, then that person won't know what God might expect when it comes down to it.

The Pharisees knew the law and kept it. Why were they not capable of discerning the will of God?


It's like a math problem, either you learn your stuff and you're prepared, or you don't, and then you won't know what to do when it's given to you.

So you feel that your discernment is based off your learning? The Pharisees were well-learned in the Scriptures. Yet, they were about as worldly as it gets. As a matter of fact, the Pharisees knew the law better than anyone you will find today. They could quote it like the alphabet. It didn't work too well for them. Discernment is not based upon our learning.


I'm not claiming to be capable of following the Law 100% like Yeshua did, but i do know that He who sustains me gives me a way out everythime. At the least because when i'm sincere i know that He will cover me with His blood.

You're saying here that your sincerity of works, or your zeal for God, is enough to get you covered in His blood.


Anyone who sincerely tries to find Him and His righteousness will be safe knowing he takes delight in obedience and is not provoked to wrath.

Do we find God or does He find us?

I kept help but see so much biblically wrong with your points of view here, Jesusinmyheart. And I'm not talking about minor things. I'm talking about very huge foundational aspects of Christianity here. The fact that you feel like your works make your worthy is concerning in and of itself.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 7th 2008, 04:28 PM
Our Father through His Spirit . . . I would add: with His Word


Did Adam have a law before He disobeyed God?
Yes, he did... "Do not eat from the tree in the middle of the garden...." So he had at least one, but i'd go on to say he also had the Law of observing the Sabbath.



No. I'm saying that group won't speed. Therefore, there is no need for the law. The law is not for those who will obey. The law is for those who will not.Really? Group B won't speed? Ever? That's Utopia!!!

What if one man out of this group had a pregnant wife and the wife went into labor and to wait for an ambulance would take longer than the man driving his wife to the hospital. During that ride things begin to look terribly wrong.. so he speeds.......at that moment this righteous person comes under the Law or Radar of a cop.....

Shalom,
Tanja

BHS
Jun 7th 2008, 04:35 PM
Hi BHS and thank you for the post.

Yes, scholars do agree that the Law was to lead us to Christ – Paul says as much when he refers to the Law as a tutor.

I will respectfully disagree with you that “until” doesn’t mean “until”.

The verse reads:

Galatians 3
19 - </SPAN>Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

To me, the seed HAS come. Jesus came in the flesh.

And when you read the context of the chapter or even the entire epistle, it is clear to me that the Law served it’s purpose. Otherwise, why would Paul say:
Galatians 3
24 - </SPAN>Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
25 - </SPAN>But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

As far as the Law serving the purpose today of making someone feel guilty or convicting them of sin, maybe. But I don’t see how wearing a shirt made of two different fabrics would make a person feel anything at all.

I respect your right to follow Christ in whatever way you choose. I’m not about to tell you, or for that matter even imply, that I am more spiritual or more mature than are you because I follow my conscience and what I believe the Holy Spirit has taught me through the scriptures. I think we are all in a certain place in our growth and God will, in His good time, reveal to us individually what He would have us know. On the far side of that thought is the idea that I certainly don’t think people who live under the Law are more mature/spiritual/obedient than those of us who feel we live under the Law of Liberty and I will not hesitate to say that loud and clear when I hear living under the Law promoted.

I do appreciate the polite dialog.

Peace to you –
V

Th OT scholars I have read go far beyond that Christ is the GOAL of the instructions given, but that we still have a responsibility to value what God gave to the Israelites, and anyone who would receive them. They reflect the holiness and character of God, and His desire for His creation.

This 1 John passage is an example of the instructions of the Lord continuing to serve the purpose mentioned in Galatians 3 --

1 John 3:21 - 4:1
"Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; 22 and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight. 23 And this is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us. 24 And the one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And we know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us."

I do not try to hold up my "spiritual maturity" against another. That would be worthless! What I do try to do is help others to see the value of the instructions of the Lord. I disagree that they were only until Jesus came. We can't take one word and make a doctrine of it when the context of both Jesus and Paul was to accept what God had given and put it in its rightful place of importance. Paul stays -- Do we nullify the law? May it never be! Rather, we ESTABLISH the law! placing it on a firm footing. It was never meant to be neglected or treated lightly.

BHS

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 7th 2008, 04:42 PM
So by what you did you feel God views you as "worthy" of His Son? The Word says it's not by our works but by His grace through faith. There are all sorts of folks, including muslims, buddhists and so on, who do good for others. Are they now "worthy" also?It's not by my works IOW by what i deem right, but by works of and through Faith. IOW Faith is an active thing, something that produces works:

Let me give you an example of what my Faith is like:
Abraham was told by God to take his son and sacrifice him.
So Abraham listened to the Word of God and proceeded to do the thing God had said despite the fact it didn't make any sense and seemed quite cruel. His understanding was that God would have mercy and provide a non human sacrifice.
The clincher here is Abraham knew the Law "you shall not kill", or how else could he have been so sure to say to his son:"God will provide a sacrifice" It's because Abraham knew God would not have you kill a human being. That's just against the nature of God.
So when God tells me to not eat pig, i will not eat pig, and when God tells me to observe the feast of tabernacles i observe that feast.

Jas 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
Another example:
If God told you that tomorrow a tornado would destroy your home would and he tells you to remove yourself and your family would you then not want to make sure that your family and everything you need is taken out of that house before tomorrow?
Or would you just sit there and say oh every thing's gonna be alright?
I wonder how Noah would have fared with his faith if he had said I believe everything God said will happen, but i don't need to build that ark cause God will provide and keep me safe?
Without active faith you cannot be saved. Jas 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
It is important to follow the instructions of God.
Surely you would agree with that?
The only place where we differ is what i consider Law still being in effect as opposed to you thinking it's any longer valid.




And since everyone has violated the law of Moses, including yourself, you better not be thinking you can keep it and measure up. Additionally, someone who claims to be born again better not live in deliberate sin because they are under the law, as Paul so gracefully proclaims in Galatians 5.The key word is REPENTANCE......through the Word and the Spirit God will show anyone the error of one's ways, and if one is sincere that person will repent and do better next time, and at the least try... this is what it means to love God with all your heart, mind ,soul and strength.


The Pharisees knew the law and kept it. Why were they not capable of discerning the will of God? Because they rejected the Holy Spirit.

Act 7:51 "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.


So you feel that your discernment is based off your learning? The Pharisees were well-learned in the Scriptures. Yet, they were about as worldly as it gets. As a matter of fact, the Pharisees knew the law better than anyone you will find today. They could quote it like the alphabet. It didn't work too well for them. Discernment is not based upon our learning.God wants you to search the scriptures... the difference is that i have the Holy Spirit and the Pharisees did not.

Act 7:51 "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.


You're saying here that your sincerity of works, or your zeal for God, is enough to get you covered in His blood.
No, what i'm saying is, that through what God has given me in understanding, i through my belief in Him and His instructions i live out my Faith in following that command. (active Faith) This is out of the sincerety of my heart, and proof of my love for God.


Do we find God or does He find us?He finds us by reaching out, we in turn respond by seeking Him. He draws one to Him.... this means He makes Himself seen, and then one starts to follow, and seek Him more and more. It really is both, though God initiates it.


I can't help but see so much biblically wrong with your points of view here, Jesusinmyheart. And I'm not talking about minor things. I'm talking about very huge foundational aspects of Christianity here. That foundation is very shaky as it's been perverted from the earliest times just a few centuries after Our Messiah's death.


The fact that you feel like your works make your worthy is concerning in and of itself.They are not my works, but the works of the Word in me who along with the Holy Spirit taught me what to do.
So how can they be my works, if i'm doing the will of God after understanding His commands?

Shalom,
Tanja

Vhayes
Jun 7th 2008, 05:09 PM
Th OT scholars I have read go far beyond that Christ is the GOAL of the instructions given, but that we still have a responsibility to value what God gave to the Israelites, and anyone who would receive them. They reflect the holiness and character of God, and His desire for His creation.

This 1 John passage is an example of the instructions of the Lord continuing to serve the purpose mentioned in Galatians 3 --

1 John 3:21 - 4:1
"Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; 22 and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight. 23 And this is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us. 24 And the one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And we know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us."

I do not try to hold up my "spiritual maturity" against another. That would be worthless! What I do try to do is help others to see the value of the instructions of the Lord. I disagree that they were only until Jesus came. We can't take one word and make a doctrine of it when the context of both Jesus and Paul was to accept what God had given and put it in its rightful place of importance. Paul stays -- Do we nullify the law? May it never be! Rather, we ESTABLISH the law! placing it on a firm footing. It was never meant to be neglected or treated lightly.

BHS
Hi BHS -

I've highlighted what I believe to be a critical part of the verses you quoted above. To me, this is exactly the commandment that Jesus gave.

As far as the scripture from Romans, I agree with you - however, if you will continue on and read into chapter 4 in Romans, you will see that Paul continues on and tells us that the Law was NEVER intended to justify. He makes a point of telling us exactly that. It was meant to show mankind their inability to please God - it was to lead people to Christ.

If Paul was putting the Law on firmer footing, why then would he have said later in Romans 7:
1 - Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?

2 - For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
3 - So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.
4 - Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.
5 - For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 - But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

I have never said I take the Levitical Law lightly. But I do believe it has served it's purpose - that's the reason the writer of Hebrews wrote:
Hebrews 8
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.

Again, I thank you for the polite give and take.
V

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 7th 2008, 05:34 PM
Vhayes,
If i may, i would like to answer this:


6 - But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

The Law states what should or should not be done, and it also prescribes a form of punishment when that same law is broken.

This is what we were released from: the punishment required for breaking the law, not the Law itself.

Why else would you find a verse like this then in the NT scriptures:

Rom 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Shalom,
Tanja
.

VerticalReality
Jun 7th 2008, 06:02 PM
I would add: with His Word

His Word is in us. Or are you talking about the bible? If so, what about the folks who do not have a bible? Not everyone lives in America or similar countries where bibles are so very easily attainable.


Yes, he did... "Do not eat from the tree in the middle of the garden...." So he had at least one, but i'd go on to say he also had the Law of observing the Sabbath.

Where does it say that was a law?


Really? Group B won't speed? Ever? That's Utopia!!!

Not on purpose, but if they do unintentionally there is no longer a law they are under that will condemn them. However, as far as God's law, how do you unintentionally lie or steal? Those are very purposeful actions. Do you speed intentionally? If so, why? I would ask you the same question with lying and stealing. If I notice that I'm driving over the speed limit . . . I slow down. I do not continue to break the law and speed. Why? Because I do not want to do wrong things. However, one should know whether or not they are about to tell a lie. A person doesn't always know they are speeding. However, if a person discovers that they are doing something wrong they should desire to correct their actions.


What if one man out of this group had a pregnant wife and the wife went into labor and to wait for an ambulance would take longer than the man driving his wife to the hospital. During that ride things begin to look terribly wrong.. so he speeds.......at that moment this righteous person comes under the Law or Radar of a cop.....

What about it?

Vhayes
Jun 7th 2008, 06:21 PM
Vhayes,
If i may, i would like to answer this:


The Law states what should or should not be done, and it also prescribes a form of punishment when that same law is broken.

This is what we were released from: the punishment required for breaking the law, not the Law itself.

Why else would you find a verse like this then in the NT scriptures:

Rom 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Shalom,
Tanja
.
Hi Tanja -

That's the reason I asked the other poster to continue reading in Romans. I would ask you to do the same - read the verse at Romans 3:31 but please, keep reading.

Where does it say it is the "punishment" we are released from?

Paul says repeatedly "the Law", not the "punishment of the Law".

Was the Law bad? No - of course not. It was to protect the Hebrew people until Jesus came and to show them they could not meet God's requirements of righteousness; that they needed a Savior, a perfect sacrifice. It was the tutor, the lesson giver, to lead them to Christ. But once Christ came, the need for the tutor is gone.

Please accept this in the spirit it is given. I am defending my beliefs because I think that is what I am commanded to do. I'm not denigrating you or your beliefs - you are free to do as you will.

Thanks and peace to you as well -
V

VerticalReality
Jun 7th 2008, 06:46 PM
It's not by my works IOW by what i deem right, but by works of and through Faith. IOW Faith is an active thing, something that produces works:

But it is not what you did that made you worthy as you proclaimed in the post I quoted. It's what you believed, and through that belief you did.



Let me give you an example of what my Faith is like:
Abraham was told by God to take his son and sacrifice him.
So Abraham listened to the Word of God and proceeded to do the thing God had said despite the fact it didn't make any sense and seemed quite cruel. His understanding was that God would have mercy and provide a non human sacrifice.


Where does it say it was his understanding that God would provide a "non human sacrifice"? It says that this is what he told his son Isaac when his son asked where the sacrifice was, but it doesn't say this is what he truly believed. I do not believe he knew that at all, and in fact, the Scriptures declare that Abraham was quite ready to sacrifice his son. He didn't know for sure what God was going to do. He just knew that his son was not going to stay dead.


The clincher here is Abraham knew the Law "you shall not kill", or how else could he have been so sure to say to his son:"God will provide a sacrifice" It's because Abraham knew God would not have you kill a human being. That's just against the nature of God.

That's not what Hebrews 11 declares. Those Scriptures declare that Abraham was quite ready to sacrifice his son because He had faith that if he did God would raise him from the dead . . .

Hebrews 11:17-19
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called," concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.


So when God tells me to not eat pig, i will not eat pig, and when God tells me to observe the feast of tabernacles i observe that feast.

And when God says that He is capable of making it clean, well . . . I will believe Him. You still have not addressed that question. Do you believe that God is capable of cleansing a man, but He is not capable of cleansing an animal?


Jas 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

I have no problem with that. However, it's not what we do that makes us worthy as you proclaimed earlier. It is by God's grace and His grace alone apart from our works that redeems us, and because of that grace through faith we will produce works of righteousness . . .


Without active faith you cannot be saved. Jas 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

Works of righteousness . . . not works of the law.



It is important to follow the instructions of God.
Surely you would agree with that?


Following the instructions of God does not mean you are keeping law.


The only place where we differ is what i consider Law still being in effect as opposed to you thinking it's any longer valid.


I've never said that I believe that the law is no longer valid. I simply said that believers are no longer under it. The law is not for believers. The Word says that the law was added because of trangression. It's the sinner who needs the law. However, God no longer looks at me as a sinner.


God wants you to search the scriptures... the difference is that i have the Holy Spirit and the Pharisees did not.

So then the law did nothing but bring death to the Pharisee and every other man who could not keep it.


No, what i'm saying is, that through what God has given me in understanding, i through my belief in Him and His instructions i live out my Faith in following that command. (active Faith) This is out of the sincerety of my heart, and proof of my love for God.

So then what you did does not do anything for you in the sight of God. It's by faith and faith alone that we are justified and not by works of the law.


That foundation is very shaky as it's been perverted from the earliest times just a few centuries after Our Messiah's death.

You see . . . this is the judgmental attitude that comes from folks who try to keep law.

"Everyone throughout church history all the way back to the very earliest churches are all wrong and I am right."

Keeping the law only produces self-righteousness in people.


They are not my works, but the works of the Word in me who along with the Holy Spirit taught me what to do.

So when you got saved you knew eating pork was wrong?


So how can they be my works, if i'm doing the will of God after understanding His commands?


When you came to the Lord did you need to gain "understanding" to know that you should not sleep with another woman's husband? Did you need "understanding" to know that stealing was not right and you should not do it? How about lying? How about worshiping some other god? Why is it that you have to gain "understanding" to not eat pork if God has written it on your heart?

Brother Mark
Jun 7th 2008, 06:56 PM
The Law states what should or should not be done, and it also prescribes a form of punishment when that same law is broken.

This is what we were released from: the punishment required for breaking the law, not the Law itself.

Why else would you find a verse like this then in the NT scriptures:

Rom 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

So I can keep breaking the law with no ramifications. After all, there is no longer any penalty for breaking the law.

The law God has written in our hearts are the 10 commandments. We know, without being taught, that we should not murder, commit adultery, love God, love our neighbor, etc. We know, because God has written into our hearts the 10. We know we need a day of rest unto Him.

However, what's not written into our hearts is "don't eat pork". That's just the law of Moses that was nailed to the cross and was for running a nation. Nothing concerning being holy and eating is listed in the NT. However, eating spiritually does help us remain holy or become defiled. Jesus taught us clearly that what goes into a man doesn't defile him. It's what comes out.

But either way, since the penalty of the law is no more, we don't have to worry about breaking it anyway. ;)

Brother Mark
Jun 7th 2008, 06:57 PM
This subject keeps coming up over and over and over again. The letter of the law of Moses is not for us today. The spirit of the law of Moses is. We worship in newness of Spirit not in oldness of letter.

Naphal
Jun 7th 2008, 08:36 PM
Let's say i went on the Sabbath and bought something from the store, to help someone else in need.
The devil would say She did wrong, she is deserving of hell.
God would say, she took care of someone in need, she's worthy of being covered in the blood of my son.

But, of course there is no need for his blood to cover anything in that example as there was no wrong committed.

Naphal
Jun 7th 2008, 08:40 PM
Yes, he did... "Do not eat from the tree in the middle of the garden...." So he had at least one, but i'd go on to say he also had the Law of observing the Sabbath.

I've read that Adam was told not to eat from that tree but where is it written he was commanded to rest on Saturdays?

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 7th 2008, 08:47 PM
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called," concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.

Ok, Look at it this way: God says you shall not kill....God disapproved of killing when Cain slew Abel, so it's a pretty sure thing to know that Killing a human is not in the will of God.

Abraham i'm sure knew that, so he told his son when he asked that God would provide a sacrifice.... well that was based on knowing God. However once there no sacrifice was there yet, and it didn't manifest until he raised the knife. So in all reality Abraham really did not have a choice other than to go along until the last second, before God provided it on the brink of his son's death.
So yes, Abraham at this point concluded that God would be able to raise his son from the dead. Which he did in a sense receive him back.

I do not see where what i said deviated from scripture....it's only logical.



But it is not what you did that made you worthy as you proclaimed in the post I quoted. It's what you believed, and through that belief you did.
It goes hand in hand, if you believe then you will follow it up with deeds. Both together make one worthy, not just believing alone. that's called faith without works which is dead.


And when God says that He is capable of making it clean, well . . . I will believe Him. You still have not addressed that question. Do you believe that God is capable of cleansing a man, but He is not capable of cleansing an animal?
But God wasn't making unclean animals clean but Gentiles..... therin lies the crux of misunderstanding, because you're dismissing verse 28 in which Peter himself explains what that vision was about. Food is never again mentioned in connection with that vision Peter had.


I have no problem with that. However, it's not what we do that makes us worthy as you proclaimed earlier. It is by God's grace and His grace alone apart from our works that redeems us, and because of that grace through faith we will produce works of righteousness . . .
Grace is grace, it's something given freely, and the one who gives it decides whom he wants to give mercy to. I do know from our own likeness, that we tend to give mercy and forgiveness a lot more esily to someone who's known to be sincere in repentance of misdeeds. But someone who stubbornly refuses to remedy their mistakes which are hurtful, i'm more inclined to dole out a good punishment, in hopes of correcting such a person.
I do see God in the same way many scriptures support God doling out correction and reproof, as well as they talk about God giving mercy to whomever He deems fit.

That Gopd can decide and make conditions on who is worthy of His son is shown here, even though the context is not the same:

Mat 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

3Jn 1:4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.
3Jn 1:5 Beloved, it is a faithful thing you do in all your efforts for these brothers, strangers as they are,
3Jn 1:6 who testified to your love before the church. [U]You will do well to send them on their journey in a manner worthy of God.


Works of righteousness . . . not works of the law.

With that i disagree, and always will following the Law as it is once written in my heart by the Holy Spirit in accordance with the Word of God leads to righteousness.


I've never said that I believe that the law is no longer valid. I simply said that believers are no longer under it.
That's another crux of definition, as i've explained that before also, being under the law simplty means being under prescribed punishment for breaking the Law. As long as i don't break the Law i'm not under it either.


It's the sinner who needs the law. However, God no longer looks at me as a sinner. I see it differently, i will continue to be a sinner as long as i'm in this flesh, all i can do is work towards perfection in listening to the Holy Spirit and look to the Word and follow Him. I can only hope that God finds me worthy to cover me with the blood of His preccious Son.


You see . . . this is the judgmental attitude that comes from folks who try to keep law.
I have not judged you or anyone here at all, it is not my place, as i do not know your heart nor your deeds, nor your progress on this journey.

However i have consistently seen statements on even this thread concluding to our being lost and deluded, and whatnot, Legalist, and such comments pop up more often than not. I am not pointing fingers at anyone here, what i'm pointing at however is the way the scriptures are being looked at.



So when you got saved you knew eating pork was wrong?
I didn't learn this rightaway, bit it;s something God eventually taught me too, after He first taught me about the Sabbath.... that's the very first thing he taught me. After that it's been upon line, precept after precept. This is still ongoing even today, i'm not done learning and will continue to learn til the day i die.


When you came to the Lord did you need to gain "understanding" to know that you should not sleep with another woman's husband? Did you need "understanding" to know that stealing was not right and you should not do it? How about lying? How about worshiping some other god? Why is it that you have to gain "understanding" to not eat pork if God has written it on your heart?

I keep hearing a ton of judgmental undertones.....

Yes, i needed that even if i knew this rudementary moral truth to begin with. I have always had a moral law within myself, but after getting back with God He has broadened my understabnding in such simple fundamental Laws to where it runs deeper than just the superficial "you shall not steal"

The thing about unclean food was something He taught me among all of this, how this figures in all of this, i have not yet asked, because to me it wasn't something i really found important, to me it was more important that i learned that this Law still aplies and so i started to change my ways.
It's sort of a picture of seeing what is defiling me in other ways too, like TV and other things that really are more harmful than people realize.

Kind of what goes in through the eyes and ears into the mind goes in the heart too....we live in a very secular defiled world which is becomeing so very liberal in everything that the lines of what defiles are getting more and more blurry and it becomes harder and harder to see the influence.

Shalom,
Tanja












So then what you did does not do anything for you in the sight of God. It's by faith and faith alone that we are justified and not by works of the law.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 7th 2008, 08:52 PM
But, of course there is no need for his blood to cover anything in that example as there was no wrong committed.

That's cause you view things differently. And perhaps your view will save you from being punished on this aspect:

Luk 12:47 And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating.
Luk 12:48 But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.

So be happy about that.



I've read that Adam was told not to eat from that tree but where is it written he was commanded to rest on Saturdays?
The sabbath was instituted from the foundation of the earth and everything that came into being. When in Exodus God commanded the Israelites to REMEMBER the day, it goes to follow that it had been forgotten.
God was re-establishing something that existed from the time God created the heavens and the earth. To assume Adam and Eve were not asked to keep that day holy, is to assume they were allowed to run the garden at will and do whatever they wanted up until they ate from the tree. God sanctified that day, and man was there on that day.... it was the first thing God taught them......

Shalom,
Tanja

Naphal
Jun 7th 2008, 08:52 PM
But God wasn't making unclean animals clean but Gentiles..... therin lies the crux of misunderstanding, because you're dismissing verse 28 in which Peter himself explains what that vision was about.

Actually that's the misunderstanding. It isn't solely about God's ability to make unclean animals into clean animals for human consumption nor is it only about God being able to spiritual make clean unclean people. It's about both. God uses one truth to teach another truth. The first truth is no less true because the second truth is true.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 7th 2008, 08:56 PM
Actually that's the misunderstanding. It isn't solely about God's ability to make unclean animals into clean animals for human consumption nor is it only about God being able to spiritual make clean unclean people. It's about both. God uses one truth to teach another truth. The first truth is no less true because the second truth is true.

You're free to have your views, and i do not expect you to bend them to mine.
I disagree with you, because God makes His will known, and this is not something He ever rescinded.

Shalom,
Tanja

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 7th 2008, 09:04 PM
Not on purpose, but if they do unintentionally there is no longer a law they are under that will condemn them. You gotta prove that one to me!!! If i unintentionally speed somewhere i've still gotten stopped and received a hefty fine. This is what being under the Law is, for the righteous and unrighteous alike, sin is sin, no matter who committed it, if you break the law, you're bound to be under the law/requirement for punishment.


However, as far as God's law, how do you unintentionally lie or steal? Those are very purposeful actions.Ever taken a pen you were loaned at the bank, and absentmindedly stuck it in your pocket?
Ever said something you thought was true only to later find out it was false?
Stealing and lying happens unintentionally as well.

Shalom,
Tanja

Naphal
Jun 7th 2008, 09:05 PM
That's cause you view things differently. And perhaps your view will save you from being punished on this aspect:

Luk 12:47 And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating.
Luk 12:48 But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.

So be happy about that.

Uh, thanks...or perhaps it might be the other way around?



It's really not about viewing things differently than using the bible to identify what is a sin and what isn't a sin IMO.



The sabbath was instituted from the foundation of the earth and everything that came into being.

institute

in·sti·tute http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngAudio Help (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/audio.html)/ˈɪnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngstɪˌtut, -ˌtyut/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-sti-toot, -tyoot]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciationverb, -tut·ed, -tut·ing, noun –verb (used with object) 1.to set up; establish; organize: to institute a government. 2.to inaugurate; initiate; start: to institute a new course in American literature. 3.to set in operation: to institute a lawsuit. 4.to bring into use or practice: to institute laws.


While it is clearly the first mention of the Sabbath, it was not instituted as law as you are implying. God says nothing about anyone else having to keep it. He doesn't say a word to Adam about it nor do we see anything written about Adam nor anyone else keeping the Sabbath until it was given at Sinai.





When in Exodus God commanded the Israelites to REMEMBER the day, it goes to follow that it had been forgotten.


Nothing is said about "remembering it" the first time it was given.


Exodus 16:23 And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.
Exodus 16:24 And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein.
Exodus 16:25 And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the LORD: to day ye shall not find it in the field.
Exodus 16:26 Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none.
Exodus 16:27 And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none.
Exodus 16:28 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?
Exodus 16:29 See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.
Exodus 16:30 So the people rested on the seventh day.



God was re-establishing something that existed from the time God created the heavens and the earth.

Actually God was commanding it to man for the first time.



To assume Adam and Eve were not asked to keep that day holy, is to assume they were allowed to run the garden at will and do whatever they wanted up until they ate from the tree. God sanctified that day, and man was there on that day.... it was the first thing God taught them......

I have read over the verses and see nothing about God even mentioning this to Adam or Eve. It's all assumption...there is nothing written to support it. That's every bit your right but for me, I would need to see it documented even one time to be able to believe it. Like you just posted, "You gotta prove that opne to me"...I feel exactly the same way.


Thank you for explaining it tho.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 7th 2008, 09:15 PM
I have read over the verses and see nothing about God even mentioning this to Adam or Eve. It's all assumption...there is nothing written to support it. That's every bit your right but for me, I would need to see it documented even one time to be able to believe it. Thank you for explaining it tho.Well by that same token you can't say God declared all foods clean for consumption through Peter's vision, because the whole thing is not brought up again by Peter, except to say that God had shown him that it was ok for him to be around Gentiles now.....

So that whole deal is as much of an assumption as is what you call my deal with the Sabbath.

As for mine being a total assumption,. God commanded Adam and Eve to work the Garden Eden for Him....well if God consecrated or sanctified the 7th day as holy and rested from his works, do you really think God would not ask Adam and Eve to keep the 7th day holy also and do as he did?

Reminds me of "be ye holy as He is holy".... whatever happened to that in the Garden????

Shalom,
Tanja

VerticalReality
Jun 7th 2008, 10:38 PM
Ok, Look at it this way: God says you shall not kill....God disapproved of killing when Cain slew Abel, so it's a pretty sure thing to know that Killing a human is not in the will of God.

How many times did God say to go in and eliminate all the inhabitants? Were those not ordered by God?



Abraham i'm sure knew that, so he told his son when he asked that God would provide a sacrifice.... well that was based on knowing God. However once there no sacrifice was there yet, and it didn't manifest until he raised the knife. So in all reality Abraham really did not have a choice other than to go along until the last second, before God provided it on the brink of his son's death.
So yes, Abraham at this point concluded that God would be able to raise his son from the dead. Which he did in a sense receive him back.


Saying things like, "I'm sure that . . ." is just assumption on your part. What do the Scriptures say? They say that Abraham was prepared to go through with sacrificing his son because he knew that God would hold to His Word and that through his seed many nations would be blessed.


It goes hand in hand, if you believe then you will follow it up with deeds. Both together make one worthy, not just believing alone. that's called faith without works which is dead.

Scripture does not say that both together make one worthy. It says that salvation is by the grace of God and that alone. You cannot credit yourself for the by-product of God's grace. It's all God, and you did not make yourself worthy of anything from God. Everything that comes from you is nothing more than filthy rags.


But God wasn't making unclean animals clean but Gentiles..... therin lies the crux of misunderstanding, because you're dismissing verse 28 in which Peter himself explains what that vision was about. Food is never again mentioned in connection with that vision Peter had.

You are still dodging the question. Are you saying that God is incapable of making an unclean animal clean?



With that i disagree, and always will following the Law as it is once written in my heart by the Holy Spirit in accordance with the Word of God leads to righteousness.


If you cannot keep the entire law perfectly it will not make you righteous. That's what that Scripture means in regards to the Jews in Romans 10:1-4. The law never made anyone righteous because nobody is capable of keeping it. It is Jesus and Him alone that makes us righteous. It's by His works and His perfection that we are declared righteous by God.


That's another crux of definition, as i've explained that before also, being under the law simplty means being under prescribed punishment for breaking the Law. As long as i don't break the Law i'm not under it either.

Every law has to have judgment. That's the entire purpose of it. If the law remains for you then the judgment remains also. They go hand in hand. The only way to remove the judgment is to remove the law that brings the judgment. If the law is fulfilled then the judgment is in turn fulfilled as well. You can't have one without the other. That's what Colossians 2 is all about.


I see it differently, i will continue to be a sinner as long as i'm in this flesh, all i can do is work towards perfection in listening to the Holy Spirit and look to the Word and follow Him. I can only hope that God finds me worthy to cover me with the blood of His preccious Son.

When trying to keep the law you are exactly right . . . all you'll ever be is a sinner. God will never find you worthy through keeping the law. His Son is the only One to ever keep it completely, and through this righteousness is our only hope.


I have not judged you or anyone here at all, it is not my place, as i do not know your heart nor your deeds, nor your progress on this journey.

Oh but you do judge them when you tell them that the entire church throughout history is wrong and you are right. I mean that is seriously a very arrogant view that you, a blip in the very large history of the church, has discovered truth where all the saints of church history have been deceived. Christians not trying to keep the law of Moses is not some new concept that just came about in the last century. This is what has been taught and accepted throughout the history of the Christian church. Yet now almost 2,000 years later we have folks who claim they have discovered the real truth and all the saints of history were deceived and teaching heresy.


However i have consistently seen statements on even this thread concluding to our being lost and deluded, and whatnot, Legalist, and such comments pop up more often than not. I am not pointing fingers at anyone here, what i'm pointing at however is the way the scriptures are being looked at.

And that is where the self-righteousness lies. You are saying that the way you look at the Scriptures is right, and everyone all throughout church history who disagrees with you is wrong, and they just aren't as enlightened by the Spirit as you are.


I didn't learn this rightaway, bit it;s something God eventually taught me too, after He first taught me about the Sabbath.... that's the very first thing he taught me. After that it's been upon line, precept after precept. This is still ongoing even today, i'm not done learning and will continue to learn til the day i die.

So then you agree that this was not something that was just written on your heart like lying, stealing, murder and so on, correct?


I keep hearing a ton of judgmental undertones.....

It has nothing to do with judgment. It was a question. When you came to the Lord did you have to learn or be taught that these things were wrong or did God already have it written on your heart?


Yes, i needed that even if i knew this rudementary moral truth to begin with. I have always had a moral law within myself, but after getting back with God He has broadened my understabnding in such simple fundamental Laws to where it runs deeper than just the superficial "you shall not steal"

And why do you feel that God has enlightened you to these "truths" yet all throughout church history this has not been the practiced teachings of the saints? You certainly do not believe that the church refraining from keeping the law of Moses is some sort of new concept, right? Why do you feel like you have it right but all the church throughout history has it wrong?


Kind of what goes in through the eyes and ears into the mind goes in the heart too....we live in a very secular defiled world which is becomeing so very liberal in everything that the lines of what defiles are getting more and more blurry and it becomes harder and harder to see the influence.

I have no problem agreeing with you here. However, where we differ is that I see discerning between good and evil as knowing when something is wicked and shouldn't be eaten (by the soul) whereas you seem to see discernment of good and evil to be choosing what sort of flesh you will eat (by the physical mouth).

It's easy to see what is wicked about lust, hatred, anger, and the like. What's evil about eating a pork chop? Do you think those laws had a purpose to show a much deeper meaning? If so, what do you think that meaning was?

VerticalReality
Jun 7th 2008, 10:45 PM
You gotta prove that one to me!!! If i unintentionally speed somewhere i've still gotten stopped and received a hefty fine. This is what being under the Law is, for the righteous and unrighteous alike, sin is sin, no matter who committed it, if you break the law, you're bound to be under the law/requirement for punishment.

If this is what you believe then judgment for you still remains. However, the Word tells me that we have a Lord who is faithful and just to forgive us our sin. How can He just forgive us like that? It's because the law is no longer there to condemn those who believe.


Ever taken a pen you were loaned at the bank, and absentmindedly stuck it in your pocket?

No. However, if I discovered that I did I would take it back. Then I wouldn't be stealing.


Ever said something you thought was true only to later find out it was false?

If you believe what you're saying is true it's not a lie. Bearing false witness is a knowledgeable sin done from a wicked heart. Additionally, if you later found out that what you stated was false, clearing up that mistake would be advisable.


Stealing and lying happens unintentionally as well.

You have a pretty out there view of stealing and lying then.

steph22nlly
Jun 7th 2008, 10:51 PM
I started this post because i have never heard of it before I searched something on Bible studies and found it. I have eatin rabbit when I was young and have always eatin pork not knowing til the day I started this post that it was forbidden in the Bible. I have read through all 199 posts and it seems to be a big debate still and kinda wondered off topic. Thanks for everyone's input. However I am thankfull for what I eat and don't have a real answer on the subject so maybe ill cut it out of my diet just to be safe ;O)






"The closer you live to God, the smaller everything else appears. "

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 7th 2008, 11:18 PM
Vertical Reality, i'm only going to respond to this one part,


Oh but you do judge them when you tell them that the entire church throughout history is wrong and you are right. I mean that is seriously a very arrogant view that you, a blip in the very large history of the church, has discovered truth where all the saints of church history have been deceived. Christians not trying to keep the law of Moses is not some new concept that just came about in the last century. This is what has been taught and accepted throughout the history of the Christian church. Yet now almost 2,000 years later we have folks who claim they have discovered the real truth and all the saints of history were deceived and teaching heresy.I'm not judging, i'm stating what i've learned to be fact! You throw the word judging out to paint me in a bad light.

However, what you said reminds me of:

Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

I'm glad i'm a blip.

And as far as arrogance is concerned: let it be known that i said and explained everything here because i care for everyone here, not to be arrogant.


As for the rest of your remarks, i'm not willing to go on anymore:

Luk 9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

Bye :wave:

Shalom,
Tanja

VerticalReality
Jun 8th 2008, 12:08 AM
However, what you said reminds me of:

Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

I'm glad i'm a blip.

Now compare the number of Christians to the rest of the 6 billion plus people in this world and you will see that the gate is indeed narrow. Jesus is that only gate. However, I'm sure you would take this passage out of context and say that the only narrow gate is the one where folks are trying to keep the law of Moses, in which case I would feel safe to tell you that you are very incorrect.

It's quite convenient on your part that you will not address any questions that challenge your point of view. Very convenient indeed.

fewarechosen
Jun 8th 2008, 12:16 AM
i feel sorry for anyone who feels a rabbit will keep them from heaven.

god bless

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 8th 2008, 12:41 AM
i feel sorry for anyone who feels a rabbit will keep them from heaven.

Just to let you know, i don't necessarily teach or believe that it will keep you from heaven, but it does make you unclean for a day, til evening.

But i do believe there's good reason God told us not to eat those animals.

Just to clarify that small bit.

Shalom,
Tanja

VerticalReality
Jun 8th 2008, 01:02 AM
Just to let you know, i don't necessarily teach or believe that it will keep you from heaven, but it does make you unclean for a day, til evening.

But i do believe there's good reason God told us not to eat those animals.

Just to clarify that small bit.

Shalom,
Tanja

You still have not answered why you believe that God can cleanse a man but He cannot cleanse an animal as He showed Peter He did.

daughter
Jun 8th 2008, 01:04 AM
I started this post because i have never heard of it before I searched something on Bible studies and found it. I have eatin rabbit when I was young and have always eatin pork not knowing til the day I started this post that it was forbidden in the Bible. I have read through all 199 posts and it seems to be a big debate still and kinda wondered off topic. Thanks for everyone's input. However I am thankfull for what I eat and don't have a real answer on the subject so maybe ill cut it out of my diet just to be safe ;O)






"The closer you live to God, the smaller everything else appears. "

Hey there...

Just to let you know... do whatever you feel God calls you to do.

Eating dead animals, whether kosher or not, will not keep you out of heaven. If you decide not to eat animals for any reason then do it in honour of God, and not to keep some law of holiness. I personally don't eat any animals, because I believe God made them, I can't create anything, so why would I uncreate them? That however is my opinion.

If you are troubled in your conscience about eating pigs, or rabbits, or dogs, or donkeys, don't eat them. Most meat eaters avoid eating certain species, so whether you're kosher or not, you'll not be alone in making a choice for personal reasons, that is between you and God. The Bible simply tells us... when you eat, eat to the Lord. When you fast, fast to the Lord.

I would love, as a vegan, to be able to say, "the Bible commands you not to eat any animals at all, ever!" But I can't... the Bible is not that simplistic.

Many folks on a modern Western diet would love to say, "the Bible says eat what you like, and if you don't eat what you like then you're rejecting His gifts..."

That is a lie also.

Keeping Kosher, as a law, is also a lie, since we are under grace.

The only thing that we're commanded to eat and drink as believers is the body, and the blood. I don't know why we still all argue about these things... We should be concentrating soley on Jesus, and not what each other eats.

Naphal
Jun 8th 2008, 01:07 AM
Well by that same token you can't say God declared all foods clean for consumption through Peter's vision,

I haven't said that but what is shown there is that God can make unclean animals clean and good for food.


1 Timothy 4:1 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;
1 Timothy 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1 Timothy 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1 Timothy 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.



Here we need to pray that unclean food be "sanctified" which means to be made clean. If we do this then we can trust that God will make the food clean as he has shown he is willing to do. If one does not pray like this, then unclean food remains unclean.





because the whole thing is not brought up again by Peter, except to say that God had shown him that it was ok for him to be around Gentiles now.....

Being brought up once is enough for it to be established. Again, the lesson involves two things and two levels but both are true. I think you should rethink rejecting the first truth only for the second.




So that whole deal is as much of an assumption as is what you call my deal with the Sabbath.

No, there is no assumption on this part of scripture. It is clearly written. I don't have to believe in something not written as you do about Adam keeping the Sabbath.




As for mine being a total assumption,. God commanded Adam and Eve to work the Garden Eden for Him....well if God consecrated or sanctified the 7th day as holy and rested from his works, do you really think God would not ask Adam and Eve to keep the 7th day holy also and do as he did?

I am saying God does not tell us that he commanded Adam in scripture to keep it. Other scripture states the first time God's people heard of the Sabbath was at Sinai:

Nehemiah 9:13 Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:
Nehemiah 9:14 And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:


If this is when they were made known of the Sabbath of God, how then could have others already known of it? It doesn't even say he is making them "remember" the Sabbath as you suggested when you mentioned Exodus. I think we have to go by what is in the scriptures and not what's not in the scriptures on this. While God had a Sabbath for himself, he did not give it to man until Sinai. Adam didn't deserve it.


Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Does this really sound like God has given Adam the blessing of a weekly day of rest or is Adam sentenced to working every day of his life?

Naphal
Jun 8th 2008, 01:13 AM
Quote:
Ever taken a pen you were loaned at the bank, and absentmindedly stuck it in your pocket?
No. However, if I discovered that I did I would take it back. Then I wouldn't be stealing.


Most banks have free pens that advertise their business and it's not stealing to take one, especially to accidentally leave with one. They want you to take pens so they get free advertising. Stealing would be if you looked side to side to see if anyone was watching and you secretly grabbed it, or went into a place where you weren't supposed to be so you could grab it.

Or another example of stealing is if you wore a mask and went into the bank with a gun and said, "This is a stick up! Give me all the pens and make it fast!!"

:) lol

Naphal
Jun 8th 2008, 01:16 AM
But i do believe there's good reason God told us not to eat those animals.


Can you quote the bible where God says what the reason is aside from just that he said not to? Most people say unclean animals can make you sick but I haven't seen that written anywhere, not to mention all animals were ok for food before the law. Why would it be ok to eat them then, but suddenly after the law they can make you sick?

VerticalReality
Jun 8th 2008, 01:20 AM
Can you quote the bible where God says what the reason is aside form just that he said not to? Most people say unclean animals can make you sick but I haven't seen that written anywhere, not to mention all animals were ok for food before the law. Why would it be ok to eat them then, but suddenly after the law they can make you sick?

The whole "these animals will make you sick because they are unhealthy" argument is probably the most silly argument I've heard. All meat can be unhealthy according to scientific study. Many scientists will tell you that red meat causes cancer and so on. However, I'm not going to base my faith on what scientists tell me. I'm going to trust God to cleanse it just like He said He would.

Naphal
Jun 8th 2008, 01:25 AM
The whole "these animals will make you sick because they are unhealthy" argument is probably the most silly argument I've heard. All meat can be unhealthy according to scientific study. Many scientists will tell you that red meat causes cancer and so on. However, I'm not going to base my faith on what scientists tell me. I'm going to trust God to cleanse it just like He said He would.

Sure, I agree with that also. I have heard all the logical arguments like certain animals being "filters" for all the bad stuff and if you eat them you get sick but when food is properly handled and cooked it is as healthy as anything else. I always mention that Asians have the highest life spans on average and their diets normally consist of a great deal of "unclean" animals from the seas and they don't even pray to Jesus to have them sanctified lol

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 8th 2008, 01:41 AM
Can you quote the bible where God says what the reason is aside from just that he said not to? Most people say unclean animals can make you sick but I haven't seen that written anywhere, not to mention all animals were ok for food before the law. Why would it be ok to eat them then, but suddenly after the law they can make you sick?

Counter question,.. did God ever give a reason on why we should not steal?
Did God ever give a reason why it was wrong to worship other gods?
Did God ever explain why it was wrong to be angry with your brother?

Shalom,
Tanja

BHS
Jun 8th 2008, 01:58 AM
Hi BHS -

I've highlighted what I believe to be a critical part of the verses you quoted above. To me, this is exactly the commandment that Jesus gave.

As far as the scripture from Romans, I agree with you - however, if you will continue on and read into chapter 4 in Romans, you will see that Paul continues on and tells us that the Law was NEVER intended to justify. He makes a point of telling us exactly that. It was meant to show mankind their inability to please God - it was to lead people to Christ.

God's instructions to His People were to show them how to live their lives with proper behavior. They also had the commandment to love God with their whole heart and to love their neighbor. The commandments God gave them were to show them how to live in love and how to please a holy God. However, they were not ever taught that their obedience would justify them before God. They knew to look for a Messiah who would be their redeemer. So Paul's explanation that the law did not justify was not new to those who understood the Tanach.

Romans 4:16 says, "For this reason it is by faith, that it might be in accordance with grace, in order that the promise may be certain to all the descendants, NOT ONLY to those who are of the Torah, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

The instructions did not teach them of their "inability to please God", but their need for a Savior. Had they been obedient, they would have pleased God and been the model nation they were created to be.

And you know what, your NT also teaches the law did not justify and that men sin's (disobedience) puts them in need of a Savior.

Again, I will quote this verse in Romans 3:31
"Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

It is not interpretation that says the law is placed on a firmer footing -- it is what the Greek word means. It means to stand firm or confirm. Therefore, why interpret what comes later in opposition to this statement?

What we have been released from is the CONDEMNATION of the law, meaning the penalty of sin that the law exposes. In Romans 8:1 Paul says, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." The instructions for righteous living is not the problem. Sin is the transgression of the law. The problem is that with a sinful nature, we cannot help but sin and the instructions that are holy, pure and good expose our sin and bring us under condemnation. But, because of Jesus, our Savior, we are released from the penalty of our sin. And the Holy Spirit resides within us to help us walk in the way we should go.

Blessings,
BHS

fewarechosen
Jun 8th 2008, 02:08 AM
do you think christ could have eaten a rabbit ? or could he not ?

because if he could eat a rabbit so can we

i would hate to hear someone say christ would be made unpure by a rabbit
it would be interesting to think christ could overcome the world and satan and yet not overcome a rabbit
but i suppose some will say so

this is why we are to try the spirits

VerticalReality
Jun 8th 2008, 03:48 AM
The problem is that with a sinful nature, we cannot help but sin and the instructions that are holy, pure and good expose our sin and bring us under condemnation. But, because of Jesus, our Savior, we are released from the penalty of our sin. And the Holy Spirit resides within us to help us walk in the way we should go.

Blessings,
BHS

But with Jesus you are also released of that "nature" that caused you to sin.

Vhayes
Jun 8th 2008, 04:06 AM
God's instructions to His People were to show them how to live their lives with proper behavior. They also had the commandment to love God with their whole heart and to love their neighbor. The commandments God gave them were to show them how to live in love and how to please a holy God. However, they were not ever taught that their obedience would justify them before God. They knew to look for a Messiah who would be their redeemer. So Paul's explanation that the law did not justify was not new to those who understood the Tanach.

Romans 4:16 says, "For this reason it is by faith, that it might be in accordance with grace, in order that the promise may be certain to all the descendants, NOT ONLY to those who are of the Torah, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

The instructions did not teach them of their "inability to please God", but their need for a Savior. Had they been obedient, they would have pleased God and been the model nation they were created to be.

And you know what, your NT also teaches the law did not justify and that men sin's (disobedience) puts them in need of a Savior.

Again, I will quote this verse in Romans 3:31
"Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

It is not interpretation that says the law is placed on a firmer footing -- it is what the Greek word means. It means to stand firm or confirm. Therefore, why interpret what comes later in opposition to this statement?

What we have been released from is the CONDEMNATION of the law, meaning the penalty of sin that the law exposes. In Romans 8:1 Paul says, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." The instructions for righteous living is not the problem. Sin is the transgression of the law. The problem is that with a sinful nature, we cannot help but sin and the instructions that are holy, pure and good expose our sin and bring us under condemnation. But, because of Jesus, our Savior, we are released from the penalty of our sin. And the Holy Spirit resides within us to help us walk in the way we should go.

Blessings,
BHS
Yes, Romans 4:16 DOES say that - but keep reading. Abraham was declared righteous LONG before the Law. He couldn't keep the Law, yet he was pleasing to God.

Romans 7

6 - But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. 7 - What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."

Again:
Galatians 3

18 - For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. 19 - Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

To me, until means precisely that. UNTIL the seed would come to whom the Promise had been made. Abraham.

Galatians 5 is crystal clear:
1 - It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

2 - Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 - And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

Paul says this in no uncertain terms - if you wish to live by part of the Law you MUST live under ALL of the Law. If living by the Law was such a great thing, WHY would Paul say this in such a condemnatory manner? "Christ will be of no benefit to you"? That's pretty harsh stuff.

If I understand what you are saying, you believe we ARE to live by the law.

Maybe we have carred this conversation about as far as it can go. I can't wrap my head around going back into a legal/law bound system when, as Paul so eloquently puts it:
Galatians 2
4 - But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.

And like Paul, I will also say:
5 - But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.

Again, I thank you for the dialogue -
Peace be with you.
V

Naphal
Jun 8th 2008, 06:09 AM
Counter question,.. did God ever give a reason on why we should not steal?
Did God ever give a reason why it was wrong to worship other gods?
Did God ever explain why it was wrong to be angry with your brother?

Shalom,
Tanja

No offense but this is way off topic...start a new thread and I'll join it. So back to unclean food....did God say it was unhealthy to eat them?

fewarechosen
Jun 8th 2008, 12:52 PM
do you think christ could have eaten a rabbit ? or could he not ?

because if he could eat a rabbit so can we

i would hate to hear someone say christ would be made unpure by a rabbit
it would be interesting to think christ could overcome the world and satan and yet not overcome a rabbit
but i suppose some will say so

this is why we are to try the spirits

i still would like to hear if christ could eat a rabbit without it tarnishing him in any way ?


14Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

15Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 16They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

so again i ask could christ eat a rabbit and be undefiled in any way ?

13This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;


but incase you dont know the answer --my lord can eat whatever he wants and NOTHING defiles him.

his chosen will understand this -- but many are not his chosen

BHS
Jun 8th 2008, 12:53 PM
But with Jesus you are also released of that "nature" that caused you to sin.

OH?? Paul still had it.

BHS

BHS
Jun 8th 2008, 01:10 PM
That was my point. That the Scriptures are consistent. Right standing with God has ALWAYS come through faith. The "Law" was NEVER given to justify anyone.

Yes! The holy instructions defined and exposed sin.

This was just Paul's explanation of what the "law" did not do. But still it is not necessary to get rid of it.

The yoke of slavery is the practice of sin, not the law.

Well the 2 laws to love that we read about in the NT are also a part of the law, so on that basis and your comment then we must keep the entirety of it?

What I say of the "law" is that it is holy and good, not to be neglected or taken lightly, nor set aside.

I think if it bothers you to think about the "law", then you need a heart change toward it (Psalm 119) and read it from the standpoint that it was NOT a legalistic system.
BHS

fewarechosen
Jun 8th 2008, 01:15 PM
bhs was that your answer for me ?

sorry i didnt know if that was for someone further up and i didnt see it answer my question


but i was curious as to yor answer

could christ eat a rabbit and not be defiled in any way ?

its a yes or no answer


also for your last sentence if it is me you are talking to , i would say this

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

so no it doesnt bother me at all to think about the law it gives me joy actually, its written in my heart and mind

Vhayes
Jun 8th 2008, 01:31 PM
That was my point. That the Scriptures are consistent. Right standing with God has ALWAYS come through faith. The "Law" was NEVER given to justify anyone.

Yes! The holy instructions defined and exposed sin.

This was just Paul's explanation of what the "law" did not do. But still it is not necessary to get rid of it.

The yoke of slavery is the practice of sin, not the law.

Well the 2 laws to love that we read about in the NT are also a part of the law, so on that basis and your comment then we must keep the entirety of it?

What I say of the "law" is that it is holy and good, not to be neglected or taken lightly.

I think if it bothers you to think about the "law", then you need a heart change toward it (Psalm 119).

BHS
The Law itself does not bother me. Not at all. It was a tutor to lead us to Christ. I don't think I need a heart change towards it at all.

But I thank you for your answers and advice.

What do you think Paul meant when he said:
I Corinthians 8

8 - But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. 9 - But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.

and

I Corinthians 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.
13 - Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body.

There is another part of your post that I would like to address but need time to give it proper attention.

Thanks again -
V

Vhayes
Jun 8th 2008, 01:50 PM
The yoke of slavery is the practice of sin, not the law.
BHS

If that's what Paul meant, then why did he say it in this manner:
Galatians 5
1 - It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
2 - Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.

If he meant sin, would he not have said sin and not circumcision? The topic of sin was not a part of the conversation either prior to these verses nor after these verses.

theleast
Jun 8th 2008, 01:59 PM
If that's what Paul meant, then why did he say it in this manner:
Galatians 5
1 - It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
2 - Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.

If he meant sin, would he not have said sin and not circumcision? The topic of sin was not a part of the conversation either prior to these verses nor after these verses.




Paul is saying that if you follow the law in vain seeking the kingdom of heaven it won't benefit you.

VerticalReality
Jun 8th 2008, 02:08 PM
OH?? Paul still had it.

BHS

I disagree, but I imagine you would get this line of reasoning from reading Romans chapter 7. I would recommend taking into account the entirety of Romans 6, 7 and 8 along with Galatians 5:16-17. If we are born of the Spirit there is no longer some "sin nature" that we are bound to. We are set completely free from the bondage of sin. If you sin it's not because you are in bondage to sin or some "sin nature" but because you deliberately chose to disobey what you knew to be the truth.

Vhayes
Jun 8th 2008, 04:13 PM
Paul is saying that if you follow the law in vain seeking the kingdom of heaven it won't benefit you.
What do you believe is "following the law in vain"?

theleast
Jun 8th 2008, 05:19 PM
What do you believe is "following the law in vain"?

Following the law in vain is worrying about whether or not pork is clean, instead of following the only two commandments Christ gives us.

Could Christ eat a pig and still be clean?

BHS
Jun 8th 2008, 06:06 PM
It isn't my desire to debate the "law" because it is an endless debate, but I will gladly give my view of it -- Psalm 119.

As to your question, would Jesus eat a rabbit? The answer to that question is very simple! Of course, not. If you believe that he did or would, then you do not understand that it would be an afront to a Holy God, if you are trying to keep the "law", which Jesus did. Therefore, I can only conclude that you must believe that he disobeyed the "law" and was not sinless.

Eating an unclean animal would have put him in a position of being "unclean", which means that he had come into contact with the kingdom of sin and death and would have had to go through the mikveh and not be allowed to enter the Temple until evening.

Blessings,
BHS


bhs was that your answer for me ?

sorry i didnt know if that was for someone further up and i didnt see it answer my question


but i was curious as to yor answer

could christ eat a rabbit and not be defiled in any way ?

its a yes or no answer


also for your last sentence if it is me you are talking to , i would say this

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

so no it doesnt bother me at all to think about the law it gives me joy actually, its written in my heart and mind

BHS
Jun 8th 2008, 06:09 PM
I disagree, but I imagine you would get this line of reasoning from reading Romans chapter 7. I would recommend taking into account the entirety of Romans 6, 7 and 8 along with Galatians 5:16-17. If we are born of the Spirit there is no longer some "sin nature" that we are bound to. We are set completely free from the bondage of sin. If you sin it's not because you are in bondage to sin or some "sin nature" but because you deliberately chose to disobey what you knew to be the truth.

I have read these and nowhere in these scriptures do I see that man no longer has to deal with a sin nature, but quite the opposite. One of the problems with interpretation is being able to distinguish between the "law", "sin", "sin nature" and the "flesh".

BHS

BHS
Jun 8th 2008, 06:18 PM
Yes, Romans 4:16 DOES say that - but keep reading. Abraham was declared righteous LONG before the Law. He couldn't keep the Law, yet he was pleasing to God.

Abraham had right standing with God because of his faith, but if you keep reading about Abraham you will find that God chose him, too, because he was obedient. The same is true for those who had the "law". It was a heart circumcised that God wanted from Israel, one of faith and obedience. But God NEVER expected them to keep the "law" perfectly, as we know that was an impossiblity.




6 - But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. 7 - What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."

Again:
18 - For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. [/COLOR]19 - Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

To me, until means precisely that. UNTIL the seed would come to whom the Promise had been made. Abraham.

I have already given my answer to these. So I don't see any point of repeating myself. My answer is that there is no longer any CONDEMNATION, but there is still a standard of behavior that God expects us to follow.

Your understanding of the scriptures you have quoted may be crystal clear to you. If you can reconcile Romans 3:31 with them, I would be interested.

Peace to You,
BHS

fewarechosen
Jun 8th 2008, 06:25 PM
just as the pharisees of christs time thought it was unlawfull for him to do things , so it is today

thats why we are to try the spirit

theleast
Jun 8th 2008, 06:39 PM
Also you cleverly dodged the question.

The question wasn't WOULD Christ eat a rabbit.

The question is COULD Christ eat a rabbit and remain clean?

Answer that, and then we can move on.

BHS
Jun 8th 2008, 07:11 PM
just as the pharisees of christs time thought it was unlawfull for him to do things , so it is today

thats why we are to try the spirit

With one important exception -- To follow the instructions of the Lord or follow man's.

BHS

BHS
Jun 8th 2008, 07:17 PM
Also you cleverly dodged the question.

The question wasn't WOULD Christ eat a rabbit.

The question is COULD Christ eat a rabbit and remain clean?

Answer that, and then we can move on.

Nay, I did not dodge the question --

"Eating an unclean animal would have put him in a position of being "unclean", which means that he had come into contact with the kingdom of sin and death and would have had to go through the mikveh and not be allowed to enter the Temple until evening."

If Jesus ate an unclean animal, he would have been unclean, just as the "law" says. COULD is very suppositional. That is not within the realm of God's instruction. Why would He make an exception? Doing so would cause Him to lose His credibility.

BHS

fewarechosen
Jun 8th 2008, 07:45 PM
so bhs i still dont see an answer

you can just say no christ could not have eatin a rabbit and stayed pure.

its that simple

so can i take this below as your answer ?

no christ could not have eatin a rabbit and stayed pure

Vhayes
Jun 8th 2008, 07:58 PM
so bhs i still dont see an answer

you can just say no christ could not have eatin a rabbit and stayed pure.

its that simple

so can i take this below as your answer ?

no christ could not have eatin a rabbit and stayed pure
I know I'm not BHS but this is my answer:

Could Jesus have eaten a rabbit? Certainly - he can do anything He desires. After all, it is His creation.

Would He have eaten a rabbit? No. He was sent to the Hebrew people as THEIR Messiah. His purpose was to live the Law perfectly, thereby fulfilling it. Had He eaten a rabbit during His ministry here on earth, He would have broken the Levitical Law and failed in His mission.

Not sure if that makes sense to anyone but me or not.
V

theleast
Jun 8th 2008, 08:32 PM
And as the Pharisees tried Christ concerning the law back in those days, so do some do it today. His answer to you is the same as it is to them.

1At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.

2But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
3But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
4How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
5Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
6But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
7But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
8For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
9And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
10And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
11And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
12How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
13Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.
14Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.
15But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all;
16And charged them that they should not make him known:
17That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
18Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
19He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
20A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. 21And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

For Christ came to be savior unto the Jews and they knew him not. So was their inheritence taken and given unto the Gentiles. So is the wisdom of God. I praise God and thank him in that not only will a remnant be saved, but also in that some are grafted in.

BHS
Jun 8th 2008, 09:07 PM
so bhs i still dont see an answer

you can just say no christ could not have eatin a rabbit and stayed pure.

its that simple

so can i take this below as your answer ?

no christ could not have eatin a rabbit and stayed pure

"Pure" is not the word I would use. "Unclean" does not mean impure. But if he had eaten a rabbit, I say that He would have violated the food laws, and transgressed the law.

BHS

BHS
Jun 8th 2008, 09:10 PM
And as the Pharisees tried Christ concerning the law back in those days, so do some do it today. His answer to you is the same as it is to them.

1At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.

2But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
3But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
4How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
5Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
6But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
7But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
8For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
9And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
10And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
11And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
12How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
13Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.
14Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.
15But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all;
16And charged them that they should not make him known:
17That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
18Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
19He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
20A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. 21And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

For Christ came to be savior unto the Jews and they knew him not. So was their inheritence taken and given unto the Gentiles. So is the wisdom of God. I praise God and thank him in that not only will a remnant be saved, but also in that some are grafted in.

Again, this is not a fair comparison. Jesus did not break the sabbath law as the Pharisees claimed He did. The Pharisees were not using God's guidelines, but their own.

Unknown to most Christians at the time of the destruction of the Temple there were approximately 1 MILLION believing Jews. Did they lose their inheritance? It is we that are grafted-in, so is the wisdom of God.

BHS

VerticalReality
Jun 8th 2008, 09:24 PM
I have read these and nowhere in these scriptures do I see that man no longer has to deal with a sin nature, but quite the opposite. One of the problems with interpretation is being able to distinguish between the "law", "sin", "sin nature" and the "flesh".

BHS

Read all of Romans 6. Paul states numerous times in that chapter alone that we are now free from the bondage of sin. Are you claiming that what Paul states is not accurate?

BHS
Jun 8th 2008, 09:29 PM
Read all of Romans 6. Paul states numerous times in that chapter alone that we are now free from the bondage of sin. Are you claiming that what Paul states is not accurate?

No. I am saying just that -- we are free from the "bondage of sin", because we have a Saviour and with the help of the Holy Spirit, we no longer practice sin if we walk as He walked.

Are you saying this says we are free from the "bondage of our sin nature" and no longer have one or that we are free from the "bondage of the law"? That is not what I believe Paul is saying.

BHS

VerticalReality
Jun 8th 2008, 10:22 PM
No. I am saying just that -- we are free from the "bondage of sin", because we have a Saviour and with the help of the Holy Spirit, we no longer practice sin if we walk as He walked.

Are you saying this says we are free from the "bondage of our sin nature" and no longer have one or that we are free from the "bondage of the law"? That is not what I believe Paul is saying.

BHS

I'm saying just what Paul states in Romans 6. We are free from bondage to sin. No longer are we in darkness. We are in the light. Not just a little bit in the light, but all the way in the light. If we sin it's not because we can say we have some sin nature that forces us to sin, but it is because we are simply walking in direct disobedience to what we know is the truth.

Naphal
Jun 8th 2008, 10:41 PM
Eating an unclean animal would have put him in a position of being "unclean", which means that he had come into contact with the kingdom of sin and death and would have had to go through the mikveh and not be allowed to enter the Temple until evening.


That's hardly coming into contact with the "kingdom of sin and death". He came in contact with such things by interacting with sinners. It wasnt a sin against God to eat unclean animals even when the law said not to because no sin sacrifice was necessary to be cleansed of it. It was a temporary state which was over by night fall.

Naphal
Jun 8th 2008, 10:44 PM
"Pure" is not the word I would use. "Unclean" does not mean impure. But if he had eaten a rabbit, I say that He would have violated the food laws, and transgressed the law.

BHS

What if he was starving and it was a matter of life and death? It was ok to break the Sabbath to do good or in David's case he broke the law by eating the shewbread but because the reason was just he was not blamed meaning no sin. Are you saying David could break the law without blame but Jesus couldn't?

BHS
Jun 8th 2008, 11:15 PM
That's hardly coming into contact with the "kingdom of sin and death". He came in contact with such things by interacting with sinners. It wasnt a sin against God to eat unclean animals even when the law said not to because no sin sacrifice was necessary to be cleansed of it. It was a temporary state which was over by night fall.

I'm sorry, but being unclean puts one into contact with the kingdom of sin and death. This is what it means. Yes, he did come in contact with this kingdom by interacting with those who had leprosy, etc. and it was necessary for him to go to the mikveh before he could go to the Temple to worship. But this did not constitute a sin. Once the proper procedure for rendering one clean was done He could enter into the Temple to worship. What constitutes sin is the transgression of the law, such as eating what God said not to.

1 John 3:4 4 ¶ Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Furthermore, I am not sure eating an unclean animal "makes one unclean".
Does the scripture say that? If it does not the procedure for becoming clean does not apply, but the sin sacrifice does.

BHS

BHS
Jun 8th 2008, 11:18 PM
What if he was starving and it was a matter of life and death? It was ok to break the Sabbath to do good or in David's case he broke the law by eating the shewbread but because the reason was just he was not blamed meaning no sin. Are you saying David could break the law without blame but Jesus couldn't?

No. God is full of mercy and grace. In case of life and death the laws of the Sabbath could be broken. Such was the case with David.

Are you saying the Jesus could break the law whenever He chose, and still be our Savior?

BHS

Naphal
Jun 8th 2008, 11:37 PM
I'm sorry, but being unclean puts one into contact with the kingdom of sin and death. This is what it means. Yes, he did come in contact with this kingdom by interacting with those who had leprosy, etc. and it was necessary for him to go to the mikveh before he could go to the Temple to worship. But this did not constitute a sin. Once the proper procedure for rendering one clean was done He could enter into the Temple to worship. What constitutes sin is the transgression of the law, such as eating what God said not to.

It's the same thing. You are "unclean" for a period of time and there are things you cannot do but it's temporary and does not constitute a sin. There is no sin sacrifice needed for either issue and now under the NT there is no such thing as unclean foods as categories.




Furthermore, I am not sure eating an unclean animal "makes one unclean".
Does the scripture say that? If it does not the procedure for becoming clean does not apply, but the sin sacrifice does.


Yes.


Leviticus 11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
Leviticus 11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
Leviticus 11:3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
Leviticus 11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Leviticus 11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Leviticus 11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
Leviticus 11:8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
Leviticus 11:9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
Leviticus 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:
Leviticus 11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
Leviticus 11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Leviticus 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
Leviticus 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
Leviticus 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
Leviticus 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
Leviticus 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
Leviticus 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
Leviticus 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Leviticus 11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
Leviticus 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
Leviticus 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
Leviticus 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Leviticus 11:24 And for these ye shall be unclean: whosoever toucheth the carcase of them shall be unclean until the even.
Leviticus 11:25 And whosoever beareth ought of the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.
Leviticus 11:26 The carcases of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them shall be unclean.
Leviticus 11:27 And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even.
Leviticus 11:28 And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: they are unclean unto you.
Leviticus 11:29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,
Leviticus 11:30 And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.
Leviticus 11:31 These are unclean to you among all that creep: whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until the even.
Leviticus 11:32 And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed.
Leviticus 11:33 And every earthen vessel, whereinto any of them falleth, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean; and ye shall break it.
Leviticus 11:34 Of all meat which may be eaten, that on which such water cometh shall be unclean: and all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall be unclean.
Leviticus 11:35 And every thing whereupon any part of their carcase falleth shall be unclean; whether it be oven, or ranges for pots, they shall be broken down: for they are unclean, and shall be unclean unto you.
Leviticus 11:36 Nevertheless a fountain or pit, wherein there is plenty of water, shall be clean: but that which toucheth their carcase shall be unclean.
Leviticus 11:37 And if any part of their carcase fall upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it shall be clean.
Leviticus 11:38 But if any water be put upon the seed, and any part of their carcase fall thereon, it shall be unclean unto you.
Leviticus 11:39 And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die; he that toucheth the carcase thereof shall be unclean until the even.
Leviticus 11:40 And he that eateth of the carcase of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: he also that beareth the carcase of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.
Leviticus 11:41 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.
Leviticus 11:42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.
Leviticus 11:43 Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.
Leviticus 11:44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Leviticus 11:45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.
Leviticus 11:46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
Leviticus 11:47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

Naphal
Jun 8th 2008, 11:43 PM
No. God is full of mercy and grace. In case of life and death the laws of the Sabbath could be broken. Such was the case with David.

Are you saying the Jesus could break the law whenever He chose, and still be our Savior?

BHS

Yes, if he had righteous reasons that superceeded the written letter of the law, and not only he but anyone else. Thats the only way the priests could be blameless for profaning the Sabbath, and how David was blameless for eating the shewbread and how Christ was blameless for profaning the Sabbath by working and allowing his disciples to gather food.