Results 1 - 16 of 16
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 146070 | ||
Hello Merv, 1) The diet of God was not given to Noah. No reason is given for God calling animals clean and unclean until we get to the Law. There are no dietary restrictions mentioned. The Gentile Christians would NOT be eating according to the teaching of the OT. In Acts 15 the letter sent to Gentile believers only mentions food offered to idols and things strangled. There is no mention of clean and unclean. And we cannot assume that the Gentiles were already eating according to the Law, because the text never tells us. If being "under the law" means to be guilty of it, then the Lord Jesus is condemned (Gal 4:4) and cannot be my savior. Are you saying that Gentiles should have been circumcised? Let me know if I misunderstood your statement. 2) Chapter and verse friend. If God gave a law concerning eating with unwashed hands, you would be able to share it. If God gave a law to Noah concerning eating clean and unclean, you would be able to share it. What did God tell Noah? Gen 9:3-4 (ESV) Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Nothing here about clean and unclean that I can see. Steve |
||||||
2 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146083 | ||
Hi Steve: Adam and Eve could not disobey God until He established a "law" of not eating from the Tree of Life". I said all this to point out that you must explain to me why God had Noah take 7 clean animals of each kind but only 2 unclean of each kind (Gen.7:2). Gen. 8:20 says they sacrificed only clean animals to God after the flood. Gen. 9:3 says "every thing that liveth shall be meat for you: even as the green herb have I goven you all things". This does not mean the unclean are for food because if they sacrificed the unclean or ate them then how would those animals survive because they were only brought in to the ark in pairs (male / female). Kill one and you end the species. It it common sense. Plus that fact that God recognized the animals to be clean/unclean when told noah how to bring the animals into the ark. Regarding the last verse I mentioned he compares animals as food jusr as God gave the green herb in the original diet. God did not expect them to eat the bad poisonous plants and things that grow !!! Deuteronomy 14:2,3 says they should not eat any abominable thing because you are a peculiar people. Isaiah 65:4 which I will repeat says swine's flesh is abominable. We are being very naive to think that unclean animals that God labelled as abominable are now OK in his sight. It would be like saying sexual immorality is OK now in his sight. God is a God of truth and consistentcy. People of God (Jew or Gentile) should obey God. They will stand out amonst other people because they follow God and not what selfish man want to do out of their fleshly desire. Sexual immorality is another example. 1.2) Why do you assume that since the Bible is silent on what the Gentiles ate they were not eating clean meat? This reminds me of our prior notes: You mentioned regarding the "law" in Gal 2 which the Jews were making the Gentiles keep. Just so you know Acts 15:24 (Jerusalem Decree) it says "you must be circumcised and keep the law - to whom we gave no such commandment" They clearly gave instruction to Gentiles that they need not be circumcised as well "abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality". This is a very interesting question you have because I find it ironic that they did not list the 10 commandments. Were they to love there neighbor? Were they not to lie ? Were they to keep the Sabbath (7th day or the 1st) ? From my study I have found that the reason these certain items were declared was that they had become very devisive and controvertial points amoungst the new Christians. For example - the gentiles would eat an animal that happened to strangle itself to death. Alot of animals were kept in closed areas and tied around the neck. They accidentally stangled themself by the rope or jumped over a fence and hanged themself they would die. The proper way God wanted clean animals (meat) to be killed was by cutting throat to allow blood to drain and then the meat would be free from blood in the proper way God wanted it to be done. Gentiles, I guess thought it was not a big deal to eat these stangled animals and probably thought it was a waste not to eat them. But God expects obedience. So that is why this issue was cleared up at the council -- similarily with circumcision. The sexual immorality had to do with many of the pagan customs involving sacrifices is that many sexual acts were performed to honour the idols and this again was a strick warning to the Gentiles to get away fro those practices. There is no mention of clean/unclean meat just like no mention of the Sabbath -- but the fact is gentiles kept the Sabbath and the diet law because these were well know law of God. This is what set the Jewish people out as being "peculiar" - because they kept the law of God. Gentile Christians would being doing the same if there heart was changed and they love for what Christ did for them would move them to keep His law. The issues that needed clarification were issues coming from the pagan past. Circumcision was dealt with immediately as not a requirement to keep to be a Christian follower of the law. But ironically, a good majority of Christians do get circumcised in our day because circumcsion had a deeper meaning of just the sign of a Jew it also had a very good health principle behind it. Similarily, the diet even thought started before Israel it had greater meaning which is health and living a long life. Before man ate meat they lived to 900 years - since meat and flood only 100. Facts are the facts. 1.3) Jesus is not "under law" because He is not gulity of sin. We are ALL guilty of sin because we are sinners. Jesus did not sin. |
||||||
3 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 146088 | ||
Hello Merv, 1) You are using the definition for clean and unclean that is not revealed until the Law of Moses and superimposing it on Noah. That is simply invalid. That would mean Noah had knowledge of something hundreds of years before it was revealed. Neat trick! The best one could possibly say (and this is conjecture on my part) is that clean and unclean had to do with what was an acceptable sacrifice to worship God. We might infer that from Abel's sacrifice from the flock. As you quoted in Gen 9:3, "every thing that lives shall be meat for you." Everything, not every clean thing. That is not in the text. Stick with the text please. However, it makes sense that Noah did not eat any unclean animal right away for the very reason you gave of extinction. 2) "Why do you assume that since the Bible is silent on what the Gentiles ate they were not eating clean meat?" Because it's an incredibly weak argument because there are no facts to base it on. "This is what set the Jewish people out as being 'peculiar' - because they kept the law of God. Gentile Christians would being doing the same if there heart was changed and they love for what Christ did for them would move them to keep His law." Gentile Christians would not keep the Law because they were not Jews. To be more exact, Christians are neither Gentile nor Jew (Eph 2:14-15). Gentiles did not keep the Law because they were not required to. Again, this is why Paul wrote Galatians--they were attempting to live by the Law, which had never had any authority over them. 3) Gal 4:4 Jesus was born under the Law. That's what the text says. You must explain it as the text uses it. Steve |
||||||
4 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146097 | ||
Hey Steve: 1) clean/unclea - Listen I can only give you what the bible says. According to your logic mankind ate unclean animals after the flood then God gave them law to only eat unclean during the period Israel and yet again God changes back to we can eat unclean meat again. Do not use Gen.9:3 unless you use whole text. God claried it by saying "as I have given you the green herb". How come you you never comment on the scriptural evidence against eating unclean meat. I am trying not to get personal here but Steve do you really think God would have only wanted clean sacrifices but not want his beloved mankind to eat only clean meat. By the way - a reminder - meat was never in the picture until the flood which destryed all vegetation (nuts, grains, vegetables). What I am doing is not superimposing anything, and my arguement is not valid. Not one single place are animals labelled as clean or unclean prior to God's instruction to there entering the Ark. Humm - could that have anything do do with they were going to have to eat animals after the flood. You said "neat trick" - if you think all I am trying to do here is trick you than I do not know why you would be wasting your and my time. You should not even have to justify oe argue your point if this is just a trick to get you to somehow limit your diet or take away to good tasting unclean foods. I will admit pork and shrimp taste good. But I would also assume that sex outside of marriage would also be physically pleasureable BUT God requires us to do it His way not our way. Just as I said about Abraham having knowledge of God's commandments (Gen. 25:5) prior to Sinai why is it so hard to think that Noah was not instructed as to what not to eat prior to the Mosaic law. Please do not take my comments personally Steve. This is great for my growth and knowledge of scripture. I diagree that the clean/unclean references had only to do with sacrifices. I believe even Cain/Abel knew what was clean and unclean that is why Abel gave the right sacrifice to God. To enhance my position, shortly after Gen.8:20 where they sacrifice clean animals to God - in Gen.9 God goes on to tell them to eat animals and clarifies it just like the green herb. 2) Why do I assume ? I really think you are doing the assuming. I could not call myself a Christian and do things intentially against God's will. That would make me a hypocrite ! We live in a Christian society that says the "normal" diet is everything - the "normal" day or worship is Sunday. In the time of Christ there was a clear distinction between Jews and Gentiles. They knew the difference. The Gentiles did not convert to Judaism but to Christianity. But with Christianity come the Perfect laws of God for a better life an Holy life. If we are to live as Christ did - we are not to sin. The Holy Spirit gives us the power to overcome sin and temptation and learn the Word of God and what it instructs us to do. Jesus would be a liar if the woman He told "to go away and sin no more" could not be done. I do not believe my arguement is weak ! It follow clear logic. The diet was in place ever since mankind was given meat to eat by God. Gentiles knew what Jews believed in diet and when they chose to follow Christ they know the diet shows obededienc through love for Him. Again, can you show me any reference at all to Jesus or His disciples eating a unclean piece of meat. But I forgot - your arguement is silence means they ate unclean meat which Daniel said would defile Him (Dan. 1) and God says is an abomination (Is. 65:4). Sorry for the weak arguement and sarcasm !!!! Now regarding Gentiles keeping the "Jewish Laws". Remember my point above "LAW" was not given to just the Israel people - Abraham knew it and kept it (Gen 26:5). The reason God sent the flood was to destroy the "exceedingly wicked" people. That means they were sinners - which means they were breaking God's Law. SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW. Eph 2: 14-15 The reason God chose Abraham in the first place was not to choose one race over another. It was because Abraham was a man of God. Abraham loved God and obeyed Him that is why Abraham was given a covenant with God because He showed obedience to the command of God to sacrifice His son Issac. Actually, the covenant was available to Gentiles (see Is. 56) If the gentiles kept the coventant they would have the same promise of eternity with God. God was very strick in not to let the pagan people corupt God's people. Why do you think there was so much killing when they went to the land of Cannan. I do not believe God would have people killed without knowing they were so far lost they had no chance to repent and come to God. That is why He killed al the people with the flood and only saved "righteous" Noah !!!! Will finish your point #3 in next note. In love, Merv |
||||||
5 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 146100 | ||
Hello Merv, 1) "clean/unclean - Listen I can only give you what the bible says." So you say, yet you consistently add to the text. "According to your logic mankind ate unclean animals after the flood then God gave them law to only eat unclean during the period Israel and yet again God changes back to we can eat unclean meat again." Exactly. "Do not use Gen.9:3 unless you use whole text. God claried it by saying 'as I have given you the green herb'." You are correct in this. My error, but I stand behind my comments. "How come you you never comment on the scriptural evidence against eating unclean meat." Because there isn't any. "Just as I said about Abraham having knowledge of God's commandments (Gen. 25:5) prior to Sinai why is it so hard to think that Noah was not instructed as to what not to eat prior to the Mosaic law." Again you are defining words based on knowledge not yet given. Abraham believed what God commanded of him---nothing more. If Abraham did indeed have knowledge of the Law, then where is the tabernacle and furnishings? Who was the high priest? How could they keep the feasts they had never heard of yet? If abraham failed in any of these, he was guilty. "I believe even Cain/Abel knew what was clean and unclean that is why Abel gave the right sacrifice to God." I agree, that's why commented as I did. 2) "But with Christianity come the Perfect laws of God for a better life an Holy life." Which laws? The law of Moses? No. Why was the Law given? Gal 3:23-26 (ESV) Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. "The diet was in place ever since mankind was given meat to eat by God." Only if you read into the text what is not there. "Again, can you show me any reference at all to Jesus or His disciples eating a unclean piece of meat." Jesus would not have since he came to fulfill the Law (Matt 5:17). I'm surprised you mentioned him. 3) "The reason God chose Abraham...was because Abraham was a man of God. Abraham loved God and obeyed Him that is why Abraham was given a covenant with God because He showed obedience to the command of God to sacrifice His son Isaac." Chapter and verse friend. Where does it say that Abraham was a man of God when called? The covenant was established well before Isaac was offered as a sacrifice (Gen 12:1-3; 15:1-21). "If the gentiles kept the coventant they would have the same promise of eternity with God." Completely incorrect. Nobody could keep the covenant. That is the issue. The righteous live by faith (Hab 2:4; Heb 11:6). It was belief in the covenant giver that one had life. Steve |
||||||
6 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146103 | ||
Steve: If you think I am adding to scripture that is your opinion. Some things are not crystal clear in the Bible but using the common sense that God gave us I think we can discern the facts and make informed judgements. Of course, the Holy Spirit will convict if we sincerely are misinterpreting scripture. If you think God's Perfect Plan is to confusingly change His diet - that is your opinion. The scriptural evidence is in Lev. / Deut. No Abraham did not have to build a tabernacle. Why do you think Abel sacrificed to God ? I "believe" it was for sin. Although they did not have the sacrificial system as the people of Israel but they obviously had been instructed by God as to what he wanted done to show atonement for there sin. The law that governed atonement for sin was the "law of sacrifices and offerings" or "ceremonial law" or "law of Moses". God wrote the 10 commandments with His own finger. The Mosaic law which listed the sacrificial laws was written by Moses and inspired by God. The covenant with Israel was made to the entire people therefore they needed a law to govern them all. God dealt with the people prior to Sinai on a individual basis. The laws to Israel were specific to Israel that is why God took away the sacrificial laws at the cross and are not binding on the Gentile or Jewish Christians now. But the diet is given to man not Israel. Will send note 2 soon Merv |
||||||
7 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 146130 | ||
Hello Merv, "The scriptural evidence is in Lev. / Deut." Precisely, therefore nobody in Genesis was bound to it. "Although they did not have the sacrificial system as the people of Israel but they obviously had been instructed by God as to what he wanted done to show atonement for there sin." This is an assumption. (BTW, I don't disagree, I just bring this up as a statement of fact. It's unprovable.) "The law that governed atonement for sin was the 'law of sacrifices and offerings' or 'ceremonial law' or 'law of Moses'." If I understand what you wrote then: law of sacrifices equals ceremonial law equals law of Moses. I cannot agree with that. The law of Moses is everything given to Moses, not just a part. "God wrote the 10 commandments with His own finger." Twice even. What patience! "The Mosaic law which listed the sacrificial laws was written by Moses and inspired by God. The covenant with Israel was made to the entire people therefore they needed a law to govern them all. God dealt with the people prior to Sinai on a individual basis. The laws to Israel were specific to Israel that is why God took away the sacrificial laws at the cross and are not binding on the Gentile or Jewish Christians now." Agreed. :-) But I would ask why you only include the sacrificial laws. There were others regarding disease, dress, hygiene, etc. Were any of these put away as well? "But the diet is given to man not Israel." I partially agree. God gave Adam, Noah, and Moses dietary laws. Those to Adam and Noah would be to all men. The one to Moses could only be for Israel. Steve |
||||||
8 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146259 | ||
Steve: I fully agree that the bible does not record formal "laws" until time of Moses but I do not think you are giving equality to all man. I do not think at all that Cain did not know it was wrong to kill. Obvioulsy, "if" they were already sacrificing to atone for sin the pretty good chance God had laid out to them on individual basis or family basis or "father past down to children basis" but they knew right from wrong. I think to take a position different than that make Gen. 26:5 to be uninspired. I think sacrificial laws and everything specific to that (feasts) were done away with. Diet laws were indeed given to man. Merv |
||||||
9 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 146265 | ||
Hi, Merv... There are hints at pre-deluvian records. Some even speculate that parts of Genesis have such origin, even dating back to Adam. Josephus mentions an attempt to preserve such records by the sons of Seth (see "Antiquities of the Jews" Book 1, chapter 2, paragraph 3). Of course, this is all very speculative. :-) God has carefully preserved what we have in Scripture. We could all probably agree on the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. ("The sufficiency of Scripture means that Scripture contained all the words of God He intended His people to have at each stage of redemptive history, and that it now contains all the words of God we need for salvation, for trusting Him perfectly, and for obeying Him perfectly." Dr. Wayne Grudem) In Him, Doc |
||||||
10 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146394 | ||
So if law (Gen.26:5) has its roots in Genesis then why the argument against the Sabbath. It was created before man sinned !!! Merv |
||||||
11 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 146398 | ||
Hi, Merv... My personal opinion is rooted in a combination of the traditional explanation for the Sunday Sabbath and the implication of Hebrews 4. In Him, Doc |
||||||
12 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146400 | ||
Doc: Math 15:3 -- pretty clear on not following tradition Heb: 4 --- clearly states their remaineth a Sabbath. 1 John 2:4 -- 10 commandments are unchanging Merv |
||||||
13 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 146421 | ||
Dear Merv, Matthew 15:3 is talking about oral traditions (the Mishnah). See 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:16 for contrast. Also, the word "traditional" in the way I was using it simply meant "commonly understood" or "commonly given." Hence, the commonly given response to our Sunday worship services is to commemorate the resurrection of Christ. This explanation dates to the very early church. Hebrews 4 implies a distinction between the day when God the Father ceased His work (verse 4, the seventh day of the week) and the day when Christ the Son ceased His work (verse 10, the first day of the week). As I pointed out earlier, this is an implication that appears to echo the commonly given explanation of the church. 1 John 2:4 is hearkening back to John 14:21. The "Him" in 1 John 2:4 is Jesus (see the context). (Scripture should always be used to explain scripture.) Christ clarified the Law. Furthermore, remember that He is, after all, "the Lord of the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:8, Mark 2:28, Luke 6:5). Merv, I do not say the following with rancor, but only by way of explanation: We see God's revelation as closed, and we look to the Scriptures as our sole authority. (As the old divines put it, "The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.") No matter how well intentioned or even knowledgeable she was, we do not see Ellen White as having greater authority than the Scriptures. Her teachings -- as is true of anyone's teachings -- either stand or fall in the light of the Word. In Him, Doc |
||||||
14 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146816 | ||
Doc: Where is the one singl verse in the NT that commands that the Church worship on the 1st day of the week. If it is not int he scripture then it is based on tradition of man which the Bible clearly teaches against !!!! Merv |
||||||
15 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 146821 | ||
Hi, Merv... Keep your e-shirt on, buddy! :-) The NT never gives an explicit command to worship on ANY day of the week. However, aside from the Hebrews chapter 4 reference that I've already given you, here are two other passages that give us a pattern by implication. "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them..." (Acts 20:7a) "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." (1 Corinthians 16:2) I've already talked to you about tradition, son. Your repeated use of that argument indicates that you are not listening to what is said to you. As brother Hank puts it, "That dog don't hunt." Remember, you don't have to agree with another person's conclusions just because you receive correction to your own faulty reasoning. (Proverbs 15:10) There is no loss of face in the response, "I stand corrected." In Him, Doc |
||||||
16 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 147243 | ||
Hey Doc: You seem to maybe be offended for me not recognizing your arguement. I am here on this forum to discuss scripture and here views on scripture. If I hold strong views I think you must respect my passion and love for God to know Him better and learn His truths. I do not agree that there are three different answers to the 4th commandment of God. 1) Everyday can be a Sabbath 2) the 1st day is now the Sabbath 3) the 7th day is the Sabbath. I just want clear answers to my questions. Giving examples of things the disciples did on a certain does not provide evidence of a new Sabbath unless you can show me within those scriptures a command to recognize a new Sabbath day. Using these scriptures is a similar arguement used when people use Acts 10 - 11 to show all meats are now clean - even though in Is. 65:4 clearly states eating swine's flesh makes God angry. Is. 56 clearly shows that not ONLY Jews kept the Sabbath. Humm - there goes the arguement that only Jews were required to keep the Sabbath. I am sorry but to use examples of 1st day meetings is no evidence whatsoever of God changing His mind on what day He made Holy and sanctified as a day of rest which gives us the opportunity to worship Him, and do "good" - just as Jesus did in the NT even though confronted by the Pharisees. Also, Jesus and Paul clearly show us the real Sabbath was the one they kept as their "custom" was. Look forward to more discussion, In the love and truth of Christ, Merv |
||||||