Subject: Hank - Diet ??? |
Bible Note: 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 |