Results 1 - 20 of 158
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: swerv Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Hank - Doctrine from God or Man ? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 145962 | ||
Hank: This is in reponse to your note regarding my statements on paganized Christianity. I am aware that this is a touchy subject but I would first say that I grew up in a Free Methodist Church and attended a Methodist college. Many of my relatives are Baptist. I respect the opinions of all but in the case of false doctrine I think people need to determine for themself if Truth is being taught within our Chruches. I have been studying these controversial issues and I believe the scriptures are clear about the doctrines I said were altered by man. |
||||||
2 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 145966 | ||
Hank - Diet : Math. 15, Acts 10, Rom. 14 -- all are examples of misrepresenting scripture to justify a doctrine that all food is now clean and God's instructions to Noah are of no effect anymore. Somehow as Christians we have developed a better digestive system which will allow us to eat those unclean food and not suffer from there ill affects. Hank - can you provide me one verse in the NT that clearly changes God's original instructions about clean/unclean foods. | ||||||
3 | Hank - Doctrine from God or Man ? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 145967 | ||
Hank - prophecy. Do you understand Daniel 9:27 is talking about Christ or antichrist. If Christ then the tribulation/rapture theory (Left Behind Series)would be a false doctrine. I believe the "he" is Christ in which fulfills the final (70th week) of Daniel 9 - the 70 week prophecy from God. Also, with Daniel 9:27 talking about Christ it also further supports that the "sacrifice and offerings" were taken away at the cross and not the 10 commandments which means the Sabbath (7th day - Saturday) is the day God made Holy in the very beginning before sin existed and which God expects us to follow out of obedience and love for Him. The "sacrifices and offerings" were a shaddow of things to come but the Sabbath was created by God prior to any fallen state of man. The Sabbath was apart of the perfect creation of God and was made for man as the NT tells us. Look forward to your response - Hank |
||||||
4 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 145978 | ||
Steve: Thanks for the response. Use of Mark 7 is the same as my use of Math.15. In both cases Jesus is questioned on the eating "bread" with unwashed hands. This goes against their tradition. But the context of the illustration does not conclude that all foods are now clean and that unclean foods are now "ok" to eat because what goes into your stomach is expelled. Mathew 15:20 - clears up the issue: Jesus very clearly states that the things that come out of the mouth/heart are what defiles a man NOT eating with unwashed hands. But make no mistake that Jesus is talking about food (bread) that was eaten with UNWASHED hands which the scribes/pharisees accused them of been unclean. The scribes/pharisees were not accusing the disciples of eating unclean food such as pork because they obviously would have been following the guidelines that God set out for man in the days of Noah. These guidelines are still relevant to use today - God wants us to treat our bodies as Holy (Temple of God). Just as Daniel did not want to eat King Nebuchadnezzar's food and defile himself, we should have the same attitude toward our bodies. We are ALL created in the image of God: Why do we think that ever since the NT we are somehow immune from being defiled by the foods God/Jesus condemned in the OT. Isaiah 65:4 - clearly put eating swines flesh as abominations against God. We humble ourselves and accept God does instruct us to obey his commands and guidlines for a healthy a | ||||||
5 | Hank - Doctrine from God or Man ? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 145980 | ||
Child of light 777 - Thank your for your resonse and crediting me with zeal. But I have a question to you as to why you consider my statements as irrational. If I was on this forum 2 years ago I would have been asking questions about why the "Church" believes in 1st day worship or why the "Church" believes in the rapture theory and I can only assume I would receive many positive responses confirming the common beliefs since I would not be questioning something that goes against the mainstream belief. I have struggled with these issues over the past few years and actually set out two years ago to reiforce my belief system. Unfortunately, when you take a hard look at the scriptural background for these doctrines you will find that there are problems with the interpretations. One of the best examples is Daniel 9:27. Most of the Christian community believes the "he" refers to the antichrist when in fact the clear context is in regards to Christ and the final week of the 70 week prophecy of Daniel 9. The rapture/tribulation theory (widely promoted by the "Left Behind series") is supported by this misinterpreted text. I look forward to your comments. Merv |
||||||
6 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146005 | ||
Thanks Steve, but I have a question as to who has misconstrued the text. I believe you agree that Math. 15 and Mark 7 are referring to the same event. You did not deal with the Math. 15:20 where Jesus is quoted as saying "but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man". How much more clear and concise does Jesus have to be for us to not understand the context of Math.15 and Mark 7. Again, I will repeat the issue was about the "food" being unclean due to not washing. It is absolutely not talking about Jesus cleansing all foods. Did Jesus not say He came to do the will of His Father and also He (Jesus) kept His fathers commandments. For Jesus to be contradicting the OT scripture on clean and unclean foods would be in direct diobedience to His Father. It would be like Jesus saying adultery was ok now but that is not the case instead He came to magnify (Is. 42:21) the law. Your reference to Mark 7:17-20 "all food are declared clean" is taken out of context. Mark 7:19 says that because food (unclean due to unwashing) enters the stomach and not the heart - the stomach now purifies the food and it is eliminated. So Jesus is saying that food can be eaten even though it has been touched by unwashed hands. I believe Jesus is using this example to not only talk about our heart but also to show that gentiles would soon be given the gospel. These cleansing ceremonies had alot to do with the Jews considering themselves unclean if having contact with gentiles and Jesus was subtlely bringing this to light. So finally, Steve I respect this discussion and will only say that I had the say position as you until I looked deeper into the true meaning and context of these passages. Peter's vision is another scripture many people "miscontrue" to justify the cleanliness of "all" food now. PS. One last point is you said in your closing comments that Mark made no qualifying statement. I do not think we have to look for anything from Mark when the context is clear and we have a direct statement and conclusion made by Jesus. (Math. 15:20) Look forward to your comments, Merv |
||||||
7 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146007 | ||
Tim Moran: Thanks for the feedback ! Please look at my most recent note I gave Steve on my belief of Math:15. Regarding Peter's vision - do you not find it strange that Peter's after having been one of the closest disciples to Jesus and taught by Him during His ministry - Peter still held to the diet of God. Also, nowhere does it say Peter ate the unlclean creepy things. Instead, Peter comes down off the roof and ponders the vision because he did not understand it. Not until he is at Cornelius's house that Peter reveals the understanding of the vision which was only that God has shown him that gentiles were not longer to be considered unclean. Peter repeats his experience when he was in Jerusalem in Acts 11. Nowhere do we see Peter or anyone else give the interpretation of the dream or even a dual meaning of the dream that somehow God was saying tp Peter that God has cleansed all food. Instead, the context and discussion by Peter explains that God had to use the unclean food vision to make his point because God knew Peter would not eat the unclean food because God had commanded man not to eat it. That is obviously why Peter did not immediately understand the vision. It was not until he was confronted to go to Cornelius house that he began to understand. I will comment on the other questions you had shorty. God bless, Merv |
||||||
8 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146023 | ||
Steve: Ok the golves are coming off now - just kidding. I appreciate the comments, this is how we both grow in knowledge and confidence in what we believe scriptural truth is. This truth must come from God since He is Truth without imperfection or contradiction. A few points on your last note: 1) Jesus is the one who added Math. 15:20 by inspiration to the writer. I fully agree with you that Jesus is relating back to the original question AND that question that the scribes were raising is the context of the entire passage of Math. 15:1-20. Ok so you want confirmation that the entire context of the text is in relation to uncleanliness by unwashed hands. I will stick with Math. 15. After verse 2 he condems the pharisees and the next verse to talk about food is vs. 11 in which He says "not what goes into the mouth but what comes out defiles a man". So you want me to believe that Jesus went from - the context of the pharisees judging the disciples for not washing their hands therefore defiling the food they were about to eat - to now Jesus in vs. 11 saying the "food" that now goes into the mouth encompases every kind of clean and unclean piece of meat. This is just blatent "adding to text" which you accused me of. I believe you are Peter's vision is an exact example of this - where man adds that God cleansed all food but the only interpretation Peter gives for his vision is that all man (gentiles) are clean and not to be called unclean. Another IMPORTANT point is that Peter is the one one in Math. 15 who asks Jesus to explain the parable (vs.15). So Steve explain to me how in the world Peter after being told by Jesus in Math. 15 (according to your view) that all meats are now clean and good to eat - Peter later after Jesus is resurected that this same God/Jesus tells Peter in the vision on his roof to eat the unclean animals but Peter refuses and no record shows that he did even though God ask three times. Does this not appear to be a huge contradiction to your overall view of God CHANGING His knowlegde of what is good for us to eat and what is not. 2) Regarding Mark 7:19 - sorry I used the word cleansed - it says "thus purifying all foods". Ok I do not know exactly where you were going with this point but I will give you my thoughts here. Prior to the "food" entering the body it was "considered" unclean by the pharisees because the disciples did not wash their hands. Note: the "food" was told to be bread. But anyway I strongly believe that if the food was a kind of meat then it would have been a "clean" piece of meat like lamb since the disciples knew the law of God regarding what not to eat so that they do not defile their body (the temple of God). So when that unclean piece of food (due to unwashed hands) enters the body it is purified by the stomach. So the few germs or whatever that made it unclean by the dirty hands would be killed by the wonderful system God made for us. I do not think Jesus is telling us to be unclean people since in the OT he clearly set standards for cleanliness for the OT Israel people. But Jesus is definetely not condonning eating swine (Isaiah 65:4) God is UNCHANGING !!!! So I do believe the text says that the food will be purified by the stomach. That is exactly what it says. Look forward to more discussions, see some of my other notes on other controversial issues, Merv |
||||||
9 | 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 |
||||||
10 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146035 | ||
Hi Steve: Response 1) Gal. 2:11-14 The posing of your question has to many variables. I believe Peter was a follower of Jesus Christ and therefore followed the teachings of the OT and the NT. Jesus did not change the food laws so why would Peter do anything different than follow the dietary laws odf God which were intended to maked us healthy and live a long life. The unclean animals of the bible were generally (as I understand) carnivors. These animals were God's way of keeping the world clean and healthy. The clean animals were generally (as I understand) animal who fed off the vegetation of the earth. This was actually the original plan for man to eat fruits and nuts. Then because of the rebellion were banned from the garden to till the soil and eat vegetables as well. It makes logical sense that when God did open meat to our diet because of the flood that the animals we were able to eat were animals that ate the original diet of God - not meat eaters !! Also - quick fact that I did not know until I began researching this issue two years ago: Noah actaully took 2 unclean pairs of animals and 7 clean animals. God knew that man would not be eating the unclean but need mor clean animals so they would not be killed off !! 2) Wait wait wait - the food "bread" was clean prior to being touched by the unwashed hands. Do you not agree that the reason you wash your hands is so you do not trasfer the germ from your hands to the food and therefore goes into the mouth and then the stomach. Please read my last note again. I do not understand why you are even debating this point. The fact is Jesus talks about being defiled by what goes into the mouth. Whether it is the hands touching the lips or the "now contaminated food from the hands" that enters the mouth - the concluding fact is that the uncleanliness causes a defilement to the body. Jesus was saying not to make an issue of the concern that the pharisees had. He took it further to call them hypocrites because they accuse the disciples of not following the washing laws when they break other commandments of God. And just a note Steve: You made the point yourself that I was trying to explain before. You said the food was "clean" of itself. This fact is consistent with the entire bible because the followers of Jesus (disciples) would never have considered eating a unclean piece of meat. The reason I bring this up is cause there is some debate about the word "bread" - if it could have been meat. Anyway, The fact is the food was CLEAN (whatever it was bread or meat) according to the law of diet God gave when meat was introduced to the diet of man. 3) You last point is incorrect. I am using NKJV and Mark 7:19 says "thus purifying all foods". Please let us not have to go over and over that same obvious points. If you do not agree then the arguement should go to the Jesus who inspired this text. Finally, it does not destroy my arguement. There is a very direct and purposeful reason why Jesus said the uncleanliness of the food would be puried. Because Jesus knows our body can handle a piece a unclean food from unwashed hands. But if you try to compare food unclean due to dirty hands to a piece of pork or vulture - I really do not have an answer for you. I think it is pretty obvious. The contaminants on our hands do not compare to the defiled flesh of unclean meat. Do you think we are progressing in this discussion, Merv |
||||||
11 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146038 | ||
Steve: Please feel free to bring up more verses for our discussion but I do not think your are adequately dealing with my prior discussion points. 1) Paul was openly accusing Peter of being a hypocrite because he would treat the gentiles differently depending if there were Jews there or not. The issue was circumcision. Many Jews did not accept the gentile Christians because they were not circumcised. Peter was being a hypocrite - not wanting to be seen with the uncircumcised Christians in front of the Jews who did not except the uncircumcised Christians. Paul was about to straighten everything out. (Read Gal. 5) When Peter ate with the gentile Christians they ALL would be eating clean food according to God's diet. Just because you see the word gentile does not mean they did not follow the laws of God once they accepted the Gospel. That is why the gentiles went to the synagogue as detailed many times in the NT because they knew they should keep the Sabbath (4th commandment). 2) Lev. 11 - Obviously they were clean or unclean because God declared it. I do not argue that point - if you took my response a different way that was not my intention. I was just letting you know some of the reasons why I believe they were unclean. These animals were carnavores. Now I really do not understand what your point is about "dirty hands had nothing to do with it". It is a obvious point that God laid down the law about what was clean or unclean. With reference to our Mark 7 passage the jewish laws said you were considered unclean unless you wash you hands before you eat. I do not understand what is so hard to understand about that. By Jesus's own statement that "eating with unwashed hands does not defile a man" - then the obvious conclusion is that eating with unwashed hands - according to the jewish laws - would defile the person. Jesus said no !!!!!! He made reference to what comes from the heart defiles a man. No where at all is there any once of proof that this text is talking about the defilement from eating a unclean piece of meat. Jesus spoke of the true defilement of what comes from the heart and not what goesinto the stomach. But you have to understand the context was only about unwashed hands and not the diet of the Lord. Jesus therefore said things cannot be unclean due to not washing. Merv |
||||||
12 | 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 |
||||||
13 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146056 | ||
Hey Tim: I looked at your profile - you must have a very busy life ! I appreciate to taking time to respond. I think we both can grow closer through scriptural investigation. I see your concern regarding God's direct statement to eat the unclean animals. But given the fact it does not record Peter eating them after three requests by God, I think that supports my position. Another support, as you noted, is Peter makes no reference after the vision to any blanket cleansing of all foods. Neither at Cornelius's house or at Jersalem in Acts 11 does Peter mention a dual meaning of the vision. With that great a revelation to food I would think that it would have been documented right away - but I see no evidence. Regarding God's command to eat and then His command to not call them unclean - I believe God used this abrupt contradictory statements to wake Peter up to the reality that the gospel would be spread to the gentiles. Remember, if it was as simple as declaring all food clean - why was Peter so confused over the vision. I think his confusion came from not understanding why God would tell him things against what he believed. I think once the Spirit worked on Peter the "light bulb" went off and then he was fully convinced it had not to do with changing God's diet but changing how man looked upon gentiles. Anyway - you can give me your thoughts. To add a little more to the mix - what do you think of Math.15 and Mark 7. Alot of Christians who say we have liberty to eat anything use the statements by Jesus as changing the food laws. But if this is correct then Peter (since he asked in Math. 15 for Jesus to explain the parable) would have already know by the time the vision happened that God had changed the food laws and would not have disobeyed God. Look forward to hearing from you, Merv |
||||||
14 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146061 | ||
Hi Steve: 1) Paul wrote the book of Galations and in chapter 2 vs. 3 the topic is Titus being a Greek was not circumcised. The point to Gal. 2 is Paul is a preacher to the uncircumcised and Peter is a preacher to the circumcised. Peter feared the circumcised (vs.12) because they felt the Gentile believers should be circumcised. A point to remember: The diet of God does not relate to the people of Israel (Jew) but to all mankind. It was given to Noah even prior to the covenant given to Abraham and well before the Mosaic law and 10 commandments at Sinai. The Gentile Christians would be eating according to the teaching of the OT which they had. Being "under the law" means to be guilty of it. (Read Rom. 3:19) - 1 John 3:4 clearly says we are not to sin and we cannot know sin without the law (Rom. 7:7). So we know come closer to the deep rooted issue of controversy regarding the LAW. The law was not done away at the cross. The death and sheeding of blood of the Perfect Lamb replaced the (Daniel 9:27) "sacrifice and offering" or Mosaic law which God gave Moses to write down on parchment paper and put in the side of the ark of the covenant. The 10 commandments were placed inside the ark of the covenant. The laws of "sacrifice and offering" were given to atone for their sins and point (shaddow) the coming of Christ to atone for sin. The 10 commandments are Perfect and eternal. They existed during the time of Adam until now. Sin is the transgrssion of the law. Peter was not fully convinced about circumcision being required of the Gentiles and Paul straightened him out on that issue. But since Peter kept the diet of God (still you have not shown any evidence that Peter did not follow God's diet) why would he teach Gentile Christians not to follow it. It makes absolute no sense what you are trying to argue. Just because the majority of Jews rejected Christ - it does not mean we "throw out the baby with the bath water". God would have been well pleased if the Jews accepted him but God knows all. God gave the law to the Jews to learn from and eventually it would be passed on to all mankind who accept Christ in faith. The law was written on the heart in the New Covenant. So the law has not been destroyed or abolished. 2) It do not know what is hard to understand about Mark 7. Of course they were considered unclean and if there hands are unclean and they eat with them - then obviously the food they eat would be considered unclean or defiled according to the Jewish laws. But that was according to the "jewish laws". According to Jesus the food would not defile them because it was inncorrect to think that Getiles can make them unclean and therefore defile there food if they ate with unwashed hands. But AGAIN I say Jesus is not ALL OF A SUDDEN cleansing ALL FOOD that makes absolutely no sense and is illogical. Jesus used this illustration to make a point about sin coming from the heart and to show Jews that Gentiles are not unclean. Of course I made your point and if you agree that the Jewish laws were made a burdensome stone for the people then you must agree that Jesus came to give people the freedom from these laws that the scribes/pharisees added to keep God away from anyone other than the Jew. But God made the laws about diet and not to the Jews but to mankind afterthe flood. God also made the 10 commandments that is why they are written on our hearts as part of the New Covenant. God gave us the Holy Spirt to give us the power to overcome temptation and live without sin. All things are possible through Christ. We may not want to accept we are to eat clean meats only but unfotunately sin is still in the world and we are no different than Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden - They were given a law not to eat the fruit but they did. Until we get rid of our pride and accept God expects our obedience to His laws then sin will abound. I think we have made great strides today, Merv |
||||||
15 | 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. |
||||||
16 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146089 | ||
Het Steve: I wrote a lengthy response to your questions but then found out the limit is 5000 characters. I had to delete 1500 characters. I will try to remember what I said. Regarding the diet and Noah. Did you know that Cain commited sin in murdering Abel. Cannot be sin without law. There is no scripture about a stated law about murder. But Cain was punished for it. Sin is the transgression of the law. In Genesis 26:5 says Abraham kept God's commandments. But wait a second the law was not "given" until Sinai. Something is very inconsistent with the arguement that the law only appears at Sinai when we have scriptural evidence to refute it. Something to think about. Definitely not, I am not saying Gentiles should have been circumcised but many of the Jewish Christians thought they should. That is why Peter was being condemned by Paul. They were being hypocrites - treating them one way when no Christian Jews were around. Jewish Christians (some) were still struggling with their upbringing that Gentiles were somehow different than them in the eyes of God. But amazingly many Christians (Gentiles like myself) still follow the healthy principal of circumcision. Lev. 11,12,13 have alot to say about God wanting His people to be clean (washing laws). Your quoting of Gen. 9:3-4 is the declaration of God to eat clean meat only. Just as not every plant was good to eat (some poisonous) the same is true about animals. Why do you think God said in Gen 7:2 about clean or unclean animals. God wanted clean sacrifices and want our bodies to only eat clean food. Ever wonder why throughout the bible the lamb is a picture of very clean and unblemished. These animals only ate good things (vegetation) not dead carcases of animals. I have had this discussion with a good friend and he put forth the arguement that many animals are raised on different diets now. That does not changed the fact that the blood line of the animal is defiled. Isaiah 65:4 says swine is an abomination or defiled or destestable. We are not to defile our body. This is very obvious to me but man does not want to be told what we can or can't eat. Just like Adam and Eve. The funny thing is even medical science today will tell us that the best diet is the original diet of God and if we eat meat the clean meats are the best for us to eat. It us amazing how we can be brought up to follow the tradition of man and not the doctrine of Truth from God. God does not want to keep us form the good things of life but want the best for us because He created us. Steve, I do not expect you to agree with me but I will say that it took me sometime to figure this out a realize that the "Chruch" has changed the Truth of God. Looking forward to more feedback, Merv |
||||||
17 | 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 |
||||||
18 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146098 | ||
Steve: Law has authority over anyone who want to follow God. The sacrificial law was the only law replaced by Jesus's blood sacrifice. Romans 13:8 is pretty clear we under two laws that summarize all of God's law: LOVE THY GOD and LOVE THY NEIGHBOR. If we love God do we really want to defile our bodies with unclean meat. Got a suggestion that would end our arguement. Be vegetarians. Go back to the original diet of God. Rom. 7:12 Therefore the lawis holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. Jesus said in Math. 5:17 - He did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. (which means He kept the law of His Father) verse 18 - said nothing would pass from the law 1 John 5:2-3 If we love we will obey. The laws are written in our heart. The Spirit will reveal our disobedience. 3) Gal. 4:4 Jesus was born "under the law". Although the same phrase is used in Rom. 3:19 we must get the context. Paul in Romans is talking after Christ was resurected and has atoned for sin. In Gal. 4:4 this is referring that Christ was born a a man with the same temptations we have to sin but because God came to be Perfect sacrifice He refused to sin as a man thus "fulfilling the law" This all makes perfect sense to me ! Talk to you soon, I do appreciate the time you take to respond, Merv Math, 19:17 "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" |
||||||
19 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146099 | ||
Ya Steve: You got that right. But the limit does keep the messages short and hopefully to the point. 1) Cain's sin - Interesting point you make about God dealing with it personally. I do agree, in a way, but I would characterize it as individually he pointed out His law to people who would follow it. Since Cain and Abel were the first offspring of Adam and Eve then I would "assume" that they knew God's law. Even you said "so while there was sin committed". 1 John 3:4 - "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law" Using your own statement coupled with scripture absolutely means there was law. We know "sin" entered the world through Adam. Therefore he disobeyed God's law. The judgement that God gives is up to Him in the OT. When David committed adultery and murder - he was not killed. But clearly God had in different circumstances issed death for sin. Ok if you agree that God gave commands (law) before Sinai then why are we argueing over whether or not Cain knew it was wrong to kill. He absolutely must have know or he would not have been punished for it. If Adam/Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of Life before God told them not to - would there still be sin in the world. God does not work that way. God is Truthful - Upfront - Honest - Loving ---- God always warns His loving creatures of the consequences of sin. He does this through law. Rom. 3:31 "Do we make void the law through faith ? GOD FORBID: YEA WE ESTABLISH THE LAW." The law is perfect Ps.19:7 and willlast for ever and ever Ps.111:7,8. 2) Lev. - washing - I totally agree (wow) !! Yes the washing for meals was added due to the law being made a burden by the scibes. God's law was meant for our benefit out of law not to be a burden. The Jews considered Gentiles unclean - that was the whole point to Peter's vision. 3) Well lets just agree to disagree on this point ! I definetely see that God is saying I give you ALL animals to eat just like I gave you the plants to eat for food. But of course it is not stated anywhere in Genesis but clearly they could not eat every plant or berry because some will kill you and are not good for your body. So I see your point but again you are not dealing with many reference to unclean being very detestable to God. Merv |
||||||
20 | 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 |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |