Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 146004 | ||
Greetings Merv! Let's look at the Scriptures that you list! 1) Mt. 15: One could argue either way based upon this text alone. However, Mark 7:19 makes it perfectly clear (by direct statement) that 'all foods are clean'. How can anyone argue with a direct statement? :-) 2) Acts 10:15 seems perfectly clear to me my friend. God has just shown Peter a vision of 'unclean' animals and then commanded him to eat of them. Peter refuses because he has 'never eaten anything unclean'. To which, God responds, "...Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." (Acts 10:15). This comment must refer to the only things mentioned thus far - the 'unclean' animals. 3) Finally, Rom. 14:14 is about as clear as it gets! :-) "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean." So, how exactly are these verses examples of a false doctrine? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146026 | ||
Tim: To continue with Acts 10. Yes God is saying do not call meat unclean which I have said is clean. I agree. But what was the result. Did Peter actually eat the food - even after God repeating three times. (no) Does Peter immediately understand the vision - no. Why ? Peter cannot understand the meaning since it did not make sense to him !!! God has told man what is clean and unclean in the OT and now God is contradicting himself. - No of course not - God is using this to get the message through to Peter that gentiles who were considered unclean were now clean. Even when Peter repeats the experience in Jerusalem to the discipes he gives one single interpretation - which was - gentiles are no longer to be called unclean and the gospel is to be preached to them. Not anywhere does Peter make any statement saying all meats are now clean. To support this look at Math. 15 and Mark 7 where Peter questions Jesus to give the interpretation of the parable. If Jesus had (as many want to beleive) declared all meats clean now then why, many yaers later, after Jesus resurected and Peter learning from Him - why does Peter question God on the roof about eating the unclean meats ??? Now Rom. 14 - this text is again a misrepresentation of context. The meat discussed is regarding meat esteemed "unclean" because of being offered to idols. The disciples clearly taught at the Jerusalem council that the gentiles were to abstain from things offered to idols. Some took it so far that they became vegetarians. See 1 Cor. 8. Therefore these verses are used to support eating anything when God clearly teaches we must follow His guidlines of what is clean and unclean. Look forward to your response, Merv |
||||||
3 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 146044 | ||
Greetings Merv! Concerning Acts 10, see my previous post to you! I would agree that the primary context of Rom. 14 is food offered to idols. However, v. 14 does not limit the statement to only food offered to idols. The actual quote says, 'nothing is unclean'. Now, how could this statement be true if some 'foods' are unclean? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146050 | ||
Tim: Ok yes we agree about the idol issue. Vs. 14 says "but to him who considers anything to be unclean". Ok if we look at this food as all being acceptable to God then we can assue that it is all clean according to his dietary laws. But what makes a clean piece of meat "unclean" by man is the fact that it has been offered to an idol. I think if you look at 1 Cor. 8:7-8 you will see the same use of the word food and it being labelled defiled is by a person who has consciousness of the idol. So i think there is a difference between what God says is clean/unclean according to his dietary laws given in the OT. What man considers clean/unclean based on possibity of being offering to idols is a different story. The overriding principle is that the bible is consistent and when at the Jerusalem council they told gentiles "to abstain from things offered to idols" this is where this issue started to grow as a controversial issue. If it was so simple we would not be hearing Paul discuss it so many times in his writings. A comparable issue is circumcision. I look forward to your comments, God bless, Merv |
||||||
5 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 146135 | ||
Greetings Merv! Sorry that it has taken me so long to respond my friend! I have a bunch of 'bad' stuff going on right now! :-( The primary point that I have been trying to make is simply this: there are several ways of looking at the 'food' passages in the NT. In your original posts, you listed this issue as one of the 'false doctrines'. My point is that 'false doctrine' would be a bit strong of a statement for something that can be looked at in several ways. Overall, I would agree with you approach to Rom. 14. But, a case can still be made that v. 14 is a broader statement since Paul states that 'nothing in unclean'. Moreover, I do believe that the statement in Mark is too broad to include it with Rom. 14. Mark 7:19b says, "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods 'clean.'" Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 147542 | ||
Tim: No problem ! I have taken time to respond also. Hope all is well now. But Tim I would have to disagree that we cannot look at things "different ways". God is consistent and unchanging !! There is only one truth or else this would open the door to many ways to heaven - which is opposite to what Jesus says that only through Him can we be saved. Why cause only His blood can save. The God of the OT is consistent of the Jesus of the NT. If they are the same voice shown through the disciples (being inspired) how can a God angered by the eating of swine's flesh (Is. 65:4) be the same God who says all unclean meats are now clean. God wants to destroy our bodies to save the Gentiles. Makes no sense. No Tim: Rom. 14 cannot be saying "nothing is unclean". That would be like saying God telling Peter that "do not call unclean what I have called clean" would support God cleansing all animals for consumption. Was there a food shortage or something. God used that profound statement to wake up Peter to see He meant Gentiles were now clean NOT unclean animals were clean. If we want to support a doctrine we can justify multiple interpretations or even blatent wrong interpretaitons. We have already discussed Math. 15 amd Mark 7. See to make the unclean meats go away - these texts all have to point to this change. But they do not !! So then where is the support for this change. God would never want us to harm our bodies. They are the temple of God and we are not to defilke them. It would be like God saying smoking or getting drunk was OK -NT bodies can handle it now with no effects. Now Tim, Mark 7:19 - must be read in context. Please read it again !! It starts saying that the defiled food (by unwashed hands) goes into the stomach and is eliminated "thus purifying all foods" -- NKJV This states that the body deals with unclean food due to unwashed hands. That is it !!!! Nowhere does the text talk about the disciples eating unclean meat (unclean - meaning the animals God said not to eat). Plus I do not think you have explained why Peter would disobey God in the vision if the teaching was made clear to him by Jesus during His ministry. In love, Merv |
||||||