Results 81 - 100 of 1275
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: srbaegon Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 146009 | ||
Hello Merv, Adding Matt 15:20 to the end of the combined text does not add anything to your argument. Jesus is relating back to the original question in order to clear up any question of eating with unwashed hands. The text does not say that the food (unclean because of unwashed hands) is cleansed by the stomach and eliminated. That is adding to the text. It simply does not say this. Stick with what it actually says. There is no deeper meaning to this unless you are inserting what is not there. Steve |
||||||
82 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 146028 | ||
Hello Merv, 1) Gal 2:11-14. Peter was eating with Gentiles. In an of itself, this is not a big deal, except that Paul states he was living like a Gentile. Therefore, it is reasonable to state that the food Peter was eating was not kosher. If Peter was eating kosher food in a Gentile home, there is no harm as both Peter and Paul knew it was permissible. 2) The food was not considered unclean because of unwashed hands. The Pharisees said the hands were unclean, not the food. Again, the text does not say that food is purified by the stomach. Even if this occurred, it destroys your argument because now any food can be eaten because it will automatically be cleansed in the digestive system. Steve |
||||||
83 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 146037 | ||
Hello Merv, 1) Paul said Peter was living like a Gentile. That means eating unclean food. If it doesn't mean that, then Paul would have accused Peter of living like a Jew in a Gentile house. No harm, no foul. Nothing would have been said. 2) Look at the OT references to unclean foods (Lev 11, etc.). Why were they unclean? Because God declared it so. Dirty hands had nothing to do with it. Jesus is NOT talking about "being defiled by what goes into the mouth." He explicitly states the opposite. 3) Thank you for the clarification. The phrase "thus purifying all foods" does not refer to the stomach but rather to Jesus declaration. This phrase is what NASB has as "thus he declared all foods clean." I don't think we are progressing, because you have not understood me. Steve |
||||||
84 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 146059 | ||
Hello Merv, 1) Gal. 2 says nothing about circumcision being a reason. Why would Gentile Christians be eating only clean foods? That would place them under the Law which is the very thing Paul opposes in the entire book of Galatians. Also, Paul scolds Peter for wanting to lead the Gentiles to live like Jews (verse 14)--i.e. being under any part of the Law. 2) "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." Thank you for making my point! There is no commandment to do this. The Pharisees and elders of the people made it up. Steve |
||||||
85 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 146070 | ||
Hello Merv, 1) The diet of God was not given to Noah. No reason is given for God calling animals clean and unclean until we get to the Law. There are no dietary restrictions mentioned. The Gentile Christians would NOT be eating according to the teaching of the OT. In Acts 15 the letter sent to Gentile believers only mentions food offered to idols and things strangled. There is no mention of clean and unclean. And we cannot assume that the Gentiles were already eating according to the Law, because the text never tells us. If being "under the law" means to be guilty of it, then the Lord Jesus is condemned (Gal 4:4) and cannot be my savior. Are you saying that Gentiles should have been circumcised? Let me know if I misunderstood your statement. 2) Chapter and verse friend. If God gave a law concerning eating with unwashed hands, you would be able to share it. If God gave a law to Noah concerning eating clean and unclean, you would be able to share it. What did God tell Noah? Gen 9:3-4 (ESV) Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Nothing here about clean and unclean that I can see. Steve |
||||||
86 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 146088 | ||
Hello Merv, 1) You are using the definition for clean and unclean that is not revealed until the Law of Moses and superimposing it on Noah. That is simply invalid. That would mean Noah had knowledge of something hundreds of years before it was revealed. Neat trick! The best one could possibly say (and this is conjecture on my part) is that clean and unclean had to do with what was an acceptable sacrifice to worship God. We might infer that from Abel's sacrifice from the flock. As you quoted in Gen 9:3, "every thing that lives shall be meat for you." Everything, not every clean thing. That is not in the text. Stick with the text please. However, it makes sense that Noah did not eat any unclean animal right away for the very reason you gave of extinction. 2) "Why do you assume that since the Bible is silent on what the Gentiles ate they were not eating clean meat?" Because it's an incredibly weak argument because there are no facts to base it on. "This is what set the Jewish people out as being 'peculiar' - because they kept the law of God. Gentile Christians would being doing the same if there heart was changed and they love for what Christ did for them would move them to keep His law." Gentile Christians would not keep the Law because they were not Jews. To be more exact, Christians are neither Gentile nor Jew (Eph 2:14-15). Gentiles did not keep the Law because they were not required to. Again, this is why Paul wrote Galatians--they were attempting to live by the Law, which had never had any authority over them. 3) Gal 4:4 Jesus was born under the Law. That's what the text says. You must explain it as the text uses it. Steve |
||||||
87 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 146093 | ||
Hello Merv, That word limit is annoying when you first get it. :-( And worse when you forget it later. Cain - an interesting situation there. There proper response (as we learn later) was execution either by Adam or one of his offspring. But that's not the judgement given! In fact, God ensures that he will not be killed by another's hand. So while there was a sin committed, there was no law broken because one had not been given yet. So God dealt with it personally. Abraham - When I use Law (capitalized) I mean the Mosaic Law given at Sinai. God gave commands before the Law was given. 2) Lev 11-13 says things about washing, but they are for very specific reasons and none of them are washing hands before a meal. 3) "Your quoting of Gen. 9:3-4 is the declaration of God to eat clean meat only." No it's not. You are adding "clean" to the text. Stick with the text. About the poisonous plants, what had God commanded? Gen 1:29 (ESV) And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food." How many poisonous plants yield seed? How many trees with seed in its fruit are poisonous? I honestly don't know, but I would be inclined to believe there aren't any. Steve |
||||||
88 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 146100 | ||
Hello Merv, 1) "clean/unclean - Listen I can only give you what the bible says." So you say, yet you consistently add to the text. "According to your logic mankind ate unclean animals after the flood then God gave them law to only eat unclean during the period Israel and yet again God changes back to we can eat unclean meat again." Exactly. "Do not use Gen.9:3 unless you use whole text. God claried it by saying 'as I have given you the green herb'." You are correct in this. My error, but I stand behind my comments. "How come you you never comment on the scriptural evidence against eating unclean meat." Because there isn't any. "Just as I said about Abraham having knowledge of God's commandments (Gen. 25:5) prior to Sinai why is it so hard to think that Noah was not instructed as to what not to eat prior to the Mosaic law." Again you are defining words based on knowledge not yet given. Abraham believed what God commanded of him---nothing more. If Abraham did indeed have knowledge of the Law, then where is the tabernacle and furnishings? Who was the high priest? How could they keep the feasts they had never heard of yet? If abraham failed in any of these, he was guilty. "I believe even Cain/Abel knew what was clean and unclean that is why Abel gave the right sacrifice to God." I agree, that's why commented as I did. 2) "But with Christianity come the Perfect laws of God for a better life an Holy life." Which laws? The law of Moses? No. Why was the Law given? Gal 3:23-26 (ESV) Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. "The diet was in place ever since mankind was given meat to eat by God." Only if you read into the text what is not there. "Again, can you show me any reference at all to Jesus or His disciples eating a unclean piece of meat." Jesus would not have since he came to fulfill the Law (Matt 5:17). I'm surprised you mentioned him. 3) "The reason God chose Abraham...was because Abraham was a man of God. Abraham loved God and obeyed Him that is why Abraham was given a covenant with God because He showed obedience to the command of God to sacrifice His son Isaac." Chapter and verse friend. Where does it say that Abraham was a man of God when called? The covenant was established well before Isaac was offered as a sacrifice (Gen 12:1-3; 15:1-21). "If the gentiles kept the coventant they would have the same promise of eternity with God." Completely incorrect. Nobody could keep the covenant. That is the issue. The righteous live by faith (Hab 2:4; Heb 11:6). It was belief in the covenant giver that one had life. Steve |
||||||
89 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 146125 | ||
Hello Merv, "Got a suggestion that would end our arguement. Be vegetarians. Go back to the original diet of God." I had thought about this, but there would probably be disagreement on whether we could eat mushrooms. ;-) "verse 18 - said nothing would pass from the law" Now you dropped an important phrase--until all is accomplished. The Lord accomplished it all, so there's no idea for Christians to attempt to keep it. Steve |
||||||
90 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 146128 | ||
Hello Merv, 1) I should have added this verse to back my reasoning: Rom 5:13 (ESV) for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Because God had not yet given the commandment about murder Cain, though guilty of sin, it could not be counted against Cain. It had to be dealt with differently. 2) Total agreement. :-D 3) I haven't dealt with unclean being detestable to God because that is not stated until the Mosaic law. As background, I follow an historical, grammatical approach to Scripture. Basically, I look at what was said, when it was said, where it is in relation to other things being said, etc. This is why I argue so strongly that one cannot take the Mosaic law and superimpose it on anyone in Genesis. You have to look at what God revealed to his people at the moment or prior. Steve |
||||||
91 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 146130 | ||
Hello Merv, "The scriptural evidence is in Lev. / Deut." Precisely, therefore nobody in Genesis was bound to it. "Although they did not have the sacrificial system as the people of Israel but they obviously had been instructed by God as to what he wanted done to show atonement for there sin." This is an assumption. (BTW, I don't disagree, I just bring this up as a statement of fact. It's unprovable.) "The law that governed atonement for sin was the 'law of sacrifices and offerings' or 'ceremonial law' or 'law of Moses'." If I understand what you wrote then: law of sacrifices equals ceremonial law equals law of Moses. I cannot agree with that. The law of Moses is everything given to Moses, not just a part. "God wrote the 10 commandments with His own finger." Twice even. What patience! "The Mosaic law which listed the sacrificial laws was written by Moses and inspired by God. The covenant with Israel was made to the entire people therefore they needed a law to govern them all. God dealt with the people prior to Sinai on a individual basis. The laws to Israel were specific to Israel that is why God took away the sacrificial laws at the cross and are not binding on the Gentile or Jewish Christians now." Agreed. :-) But I would ask why you only include the sacrificial laws. There were others regarding disease, dress, hygiene, etc. Were any of these put away as well? "But the diet is given to man not Israel." I partially agree. God gave Adam, Noah, and Moses dietary laws. Those to Adam and Noah would be to all men. The one to Moses could only be for Israel. Steve |
||||||
92 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 146134 | ||
Hello Merv, "Makes no sense. Our stomachs are the same from Adam to now !!" By the same logic, we could not eat meat at all. That can't be the reason. "If you agree Cain and Abel knew difference between clean/unclean then explain why God could not have unclean sacrifices." I can't. I don't know the criteria until I read the Mosaic law which Cain/Abel did not have. "Their faith in that system of laws atoned for their sins." No! Faith in God is what atones for sin (Gen 15:6). Faith in a system is righteousness based on works. Concerning Peter, he knew exactly what things were clean and unclean both in regard to diet and Gentile interaction. But as I said, he lived as a Gentile amongst the Gentiles, not as a Jew amongst the Gentiles. "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 !!" Amen! "But these errors above do not change that the covenant was given to Abraham prior to Sinai." Yes, the covenant of promised based on faith was given. "When [Gentiles] believed in Jesus as Saviour they would know that there life had to change according to how God wants us to be the Light of the World." I agree, the question is, "In what way does it change?" Steve |
||||||
93 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 146165 | ||
Hello Merv, I did not say there was no law before Moses. I'm saying the law of Moses was not yet in effect. God had indeed given laws, commands, etc. to follow before Moses. "Another thing is the Jesusalem council did not mention the 10 comm. so gentiles are not obligated to keep them." I agree completely with this. "How is a God to judge them wicked without a standard?" Why were the people judged in the flood? Gen 6:5 (ESV) The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Why was Sodom judged? Ezek 16:49-50 (ESV) Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it. So to respond, I see God being able to judge them for their rejection of his revelation, but more than that for their pride and arrogance. Cain had the same problem. "I still think your rationale for debate is just to suit your position" I think the same of your rationale. Steve |
||||||
94 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 146360 | ||
Hello Merv, I did not say that "Cain did not know it was wrong to kill." And diet laws were given to man, just not the ones state. Steve |
||||||
95 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 146430 | ||
Hello Merv, By your reasoning then, we should all convert to vegeterian in order to serve the Lord longer. You go first. I have never seen a law before that given by Moses where a sacrifice was required to atone for sin. Could you give me chapter and verse on that please, since you seem to know it. What I do see is that sacrifices were given for both sin and worship. But again, I don't see a law. No verse says that Peter sat down and had pork for dinner. True enough. But when a fellow apostle says you're living like a Gentile (he doesn't say Gentile Christian), then I'm convinced because a typical Gentile eats unclean meat. And what were the Gentiles commanded to do? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing more was required. Steve |
||||||
96 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 146434 | ||
Hello Merv, And what law(s) did Abraham have? Not the Mosaic law which was to come. Rather he had some very specific laws: Leave his country (Gen 12:1) Look at what I'm giving you (Gen 13:14) Walk through the land (Gen 13:17) Gather animals (Gen 15:9) Walk before me and be blameless (Gen 17:1) You shall be circumcised (Gen 17:11,26) Do as Sarah tells you (concerning Hagar) (Gen 21:12) Offer Isaac as a burnt offering (Gen 22:2) That's enough for now. There were a few others (like it's acceptable to eat meat and avenge one murdered) that I haven't included but certainly could. There is simply no law stating that anyone could not eat an unclean animal before the Mosaic law. There is no commandment written. I don't have to explain Is 65:4. God already did it, and I've shared those verses with you. I simply accept them at face value. My argument is not illogical because it's based on what the text states. Your argument is based on the conception that a law made mandatory for Jews only is somehow applicable universally--even before it was mandated! That is simply poor exegesis and will not be tolerated. Steve |
||||||
97 | Hank - Doctrine from God or Man ? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 147419 | ||
Hello Merv, "God gave it as a blessing !!!! Heb. 4 clearly says 'There remains a Sabbath rest'." Yes, and if you read the context, it says nothing about a day of the week. The whole point of Heb. 4 is the rest we have in Christ. Steve |
||||||
98 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 147545 | ||
Hello Merv, I do not have a problem saying that men rested on the sabbath day. My problem is that no law was given to keep the sabbath until the Mosaic Law. You must look at the commandments of the Lord in respect to when they were given. Steve |
||||||
99 | Hank - Diet ??? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 147546 | ||
Hello Merv, We are not discussing the woman taken in adultery. Please stay on topic. "Repenting is one thing but the evidence of a repentant heart is to 'do' what God 'requires'. Very plain and clear !!!!" Amen. Again you argue from what is not written. Perhaps if you stayed with what is clearly written, you might learn. Steve |
||||||
100 | Hank - Doctrine from God or Man ? | Bible general Archive 2 | srbaegon | 147549 | ||
Hello Merv, I never said that we shouldn't rest from our daily labors. My point is that it isn't a command. Steve |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [64] >> |