Results 141 - 158 of 158
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: swerv Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | 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 |
||||||
142 | Sabbath is Saturday or not ?? | Col 2:16 | swerv | 146060 | ||
Hi Emmas: Thanks for the reply. I see you have found by poor sentence structure. I see you have a good grasp of scripture. I see that you are Catholic. I hjope you do not take personal offence to may comments on the early Roman Catholic Church. I see you propose an alternative interpretation to Daniel. I look forward to our discussion. From the research I have done over the past two years it seems quite evident that the persecuting power of Daniel 7:25 is the Roman Catholic Church system. In my research, I have found statements from Catholic Popes, priests and scholars that they take responsibility for the change of the Sabbath from 7th day to 1st day. I have even read statements from Catholics who ridicule the protestants for not reforming the Sabbath since the change came only by their divine change since there is no scriptural evidence in the bible of a change. I believe the 4th beast you quoted is the Roman empire and the persecuting power which has power is the Roman Catholic Church. The power went from the emperors to the Popes. In Daniel 11:6, I believe the king's daughter of he south is Berenice daughter of Ptolemy, King of Egypt. Antiochus Theos, King of Syria put away his wife, Laodice, and her two sons, declaring them to be illegitimate. Antiochus dismissed his wife Laodice, according to the treaty, and went to receive his future bride. Ptolemy carried his daughter to Pelusium, put her on board his fleet, ans sailed with her to Selucia, a sea-port town near the mouth of the River Orantes, in Syri; where, having met Antichos, he delivered his daughter to him with immense dowry, so that Ptolemy received the appellation of "the dowry giver." The peace was ratified. I do not know if this is the same Antichus you were referring to but I thought this might be interesting for you. Look forward to your comments, Merv |
||||||
143 | 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 |
||||||
144 | Sabbath is Saturday or not ?? | Col 2:16 | swerv | 146054 | ||
Sabbath response: I grew up in a Sunday worship Church but recently I was challeged on what day is the weekly day God made Holy and Sactified for rest and worship of God our creator. I fimly believe, after two years searching for the truth, that Saturday from sun down to sundown is the true Sabbath of the 4th commandment. There is historical that the changing of the worship day is a fulfillment of Daniel 7:25. Look forward to comments, Merv |
||||||
145 | 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 |
||||||
146 | 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 |
||||||
147 | 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 |
||||||
148 | 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 |
||||||
149 | 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 |
||||||
150 | 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 |
||||||
151 | 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 |
||||||
152 | 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 |
||||||
153 | 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 | ||||||
154 | 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 |
||||||
155 | 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. | ||||||
156 | 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. |
||||||
157 | Pagan doctrines are in the Church !!!! | NT general Archive 1 | swerv | 145953 | ||
Why does the Christian community not face reality that the basic doctines have come from paganized Christianity. Issues such as eternal hell, Sabbath, clean/unclean foods, and prophecy have all been corupted by man and are at the foundation of many unbiblical doctrines of the Church. | ||||||
158 | Diet and Sabbath of the Lord | OT general | swerv | 145952 | ||
The diet of God and Sabbath of the Lord are to be followed out of obedience of love for God. These laws were given to mankind for their benefit. The Sabbath was instituted prior to sin and the clean/unclean diet was given to Noah. Noah took 7 clean animals and only 2 unclean animals into the ark for the very reason of having food when they left the ark. Only 2 unclean because they would not be eating them. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] |