Results 21 - 40 of 185
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: swerv Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | In what way is it clear? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146029 | ||
Hi Tim: Thanks for the question. No I do not believe Christ is the one who set up the abomination. The Text says "He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.(period) And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desloate. After Christ is crucified and resurected He is heaven with the Father. The predicted downfall of Jerusalem is predicted here in Daniel and also Jesus made the same predictons in Math.24. Verse 15 of Math. 24 says that when you see the "abomination of desolation" spoken of by Daniel - standing in the holy place - then let those in Judea flee to the mountains. This is exactly what happened. Rome invaded and utterly destroyed Jerusalem. This was a judgement predicted by God through Daniel and repeated by Jesus to His disciples. The "one" who comes on the wing of this abomination is the antichrist system which will lead the Church away from the truth and persecute people who try to keep the truth. This antichrist is/was the Roman Catholic Church. Their false doctrines still exist in the majority of Protestant Churches. See some of my other notes for comments. I look forward to your reply, God bless, Merv |
||||||
22 | 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 |
||||||
23 | 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 |
||||||
24 | Eternal Hell ?? Immortality of soul ?? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146051 | ||
Can someone explain why a God of love and mercy would send millions of lost souls to an eternal hell ? As well, please comment on why many people believe that the soul has immortality prior to it being given immortality at the ressurection ? | ||||||
25 | 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 |
||||||
26 | 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 |
||||||
27 | 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 |
||||||
28 | 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. |
||||||
29 | 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 |
||||||
30 | 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 |
||||||
31 | 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" |
||||||
32 | 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 |
||||||
33 | 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 |
||||||
34 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146109 | ||
Steve: continued .. I was reading my last note to you and I mistyped something. You say God went from "eat everything" - before Sinai to "eat only clean meat" during the Israel period to "eat everything again" after Jesus. Makes no sense. Are stomachs are the same from Adam to now !! 1) If you agree Cain and Abel knew difference between clean/unclean then explain why God could not have unclean sacrifices. If it does not matter for our bodies then why does God make such a deal about clean sacrifices ?? 2) No no "new" laws were given except "love thy neighbor" but even that was mentioned in Leviticus. Jesus came to magnify the law. Now not written on stone but on the heart. If we lust we commit adultery ... 10 comm. with stand for ever and ever. They are the laws which point out out sin. The atonement laws (ceremonial) were "done away with" or "nailed to the cross" by Jesus because He was the Lamb who would come to take away the sin of the world. But sin still abounds in the world (lusts of the flesh) so we need the law which is written in our heart to help us recognize temptation and flee from it. Gal. 3 - well everything has to be taken in context. In the OT the 10 comm. pointed out there sins and the need for atonement. Through "faith" in the the shedding of clean animal blood and recognizing that a Saviour would come to shed His blood for their sins. Their faith in that system of laws atoned for their sins. We no longer need that system. We no longer need to be led in faith that He has come - because He has died and atoned for our sins. Now we just have faith and belied that He loved us so much that He did indeed die and was resurected meaning we too will be resurected when He returns. Our faith and love towards God is hsown to Him by faithful obedience to His law NOT the Jewish "600" laws which made them "work" for salvation !! Diet - do not think I am misconstruing anything - I believe it is the only logical conclusiion. You still have not commented on the comment about Peter knowing everything was clean before the vision ?? So Jesus fulfilled the law but now we are not under the law - so I am safe to say we can now kill and still enter heaven !! 3) Ya my fault - i was getting way ahead of myself. Right - God called Abram out of his country. I assume He did this to get Abram away from sin so God could raise up a Godly nation through Abram. Don't know where I thought it said Abram was a man of God but I look at it this way - God saved Noah because (Gen. 6:8) "he found grace in the eyes of the Lord". I have to figure there was a reason why God could trust Abram to make His covenant with him ?? God knows all !! Abram proved his loyalty with obeying God. And yes the covenant was given as soon as he told Abram to come out of his country. But it must have taken alot of faith for Abram to do this !! But these errors above do not change that the covenant was given to Abraham prior to Sinai. Hebrews 8 -- Now I do not believe I am incorrect. The coventant and grace was available to all mankind. Grace is just the fact that God will actually allow us to repent of out sins and have eternal life. The promise of His covenant is that we who believe and have faith and show love to God through obedience will not die as a punishment for sin but have eternal life. Just in the OT they had to not only not sin but if they did sin they had to atone for their sins through faith in the shedding of the blood of bulls and goats (recognizing that a coming Messiah would come to pay the ultimate price for sin throught His death - since the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin) Only Christ could atone for out sin. When I said keep the covenant I meant being obedient to God through faith - if they sinned they must do the sacrifices in faith. But that fact is as you agree that gentiles were offered the covenant. So to say that gentiles do not know the diet and laws of God is just not right. When they believed in Jesus as Saviour they would know that there life had to change according to how God wants us to be the Lightof the World. Merv |
||||||
35 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146131 | ||
Steve: Still you must explain Gen 26:5 if you argue there was not law before Moses. Another thing is the Jesusalem council did not mention the 10 comm. so gentiles are not obligated to keep them. Cain did evil, the people of Sodom were wicked (sexual immorality) and people of Noah's time were wicked. How is a God to judge them wicked without a standard. I still think your rational for debate is just to suit your position Merv |
||||||
36 | 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 |
||||||
37 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146393 | ||
Steve: Sin is the transgression of the law. Gen. 26:5 pretty well gives me all the support to say they had God's law. It all began in the diobedience against God's command to not eat the fruit. Then began the process of understanding that blood must be shed for sin (sacrifice). Diet: You have never once explained why God would be so against swine (Is.65:4) but then say it was ok in NT. Remember Jesus sent the evil spirits into the swine !!!! I think if you are honest you will admit your agruement of God cleansing all meat is quite illogical and a defilement of our bodies. Does not say anything about not smoking in the Bible but anyone who argues it will not hurt the body is illogical. We cannot simply accept arguements because they are traditional and that they may make us change our thinking on what we eat. Merv |
||||||
38 | 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 |
||||||
39 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | swerv | 146396 | ||
Yes it the reason. the life expectancy dropped significantly after the flood. Two reasons - eating meat and the evironmental changes from flood !! You cannot avoid the obvious - Abel sacrificed a lamb not a piglet !!!!! He knew the requirement of God. Of course I am not saying they had faith in the works of sacrifices but they had faith in God who told them to sacrifice. Do you really think they enjoyed killed one of there precious little lambs that they raised and fed -- of course not. But the symbolism they understood !!! God would have to sacrifice His own Son for their sin. They did not want to sin so they would not have to kill a little lamb. They understood the penalty that had to happen for there sin. How much more should we not feel like sinning to avoid crucifying out Lord ! We might as well forget the Peter vision !! YOu have no scriptural evidence to back up Peter now accepting to eat unclean meat !!! WHERE in the bible does he say it or does he eat it --- NOWHERE. Remember the vision was indeed a VISION. Symbolic reference was made to God saying everything is clean to wake up Peter's brain to understand that God was not cleansing the unclean animals (because just a Peter thought - it could not be - that is why he disagreed with God's command) BUT rather God was showing Peter that all mankind is clean before GOD and should be looked upon that way by the Jews so that the gospel can be preached. I cannot make this any more clear. Actually if we want to be specific - God promised a way out of sin way back in the garden. God predicted to the devil that one would come and bruise his head (Gen.3:15) -- The plan for salvation was put in place !!! Gentiles: In what way does there life have to change. --- according to God's commands !!! We must search out heart to see if we are following the traditions of man or the doctrines of the gospel. Merv |
||||||
40 | 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 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [10] >> |