What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?

Posted By: Daryl

What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/07/03 01:48 AM

quote:

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY WILL:
However I don't think anyone will lose their soul for eating pork.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY DARYL FAWCETT:
That's a dangerous assumption. I prefer not to eat pork or any other unclean food and take a chance on that.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY CHERI FRITZ:
Br. Will,

Regarding meat eating, we are in the antitypical day of atonement. Now the word typical is used to reference the earthly things which we are accustomed to and call common many times. And the word antitypical is used to describe what is of God.

Now I am going to be brief and simplify the information for you because this is actually a very lengthy study, but well worth your time. So I implore you to find out for yourself as to what our Lord desires of you and to never to be ignorant of any of His truths that He has made already known to us. The following is only a quick overview:
  • 1844 Christ entered the Most Holy Place
  • He begins the last of His work in the Heavenly Sanctuary
  • The judgment of the righteous dead in Christ begins *Note: the living righteous are "soon" to be judged...referencing words of Mrs. White
  • The Sabbath light becomes unveiled and it then becomes a test for our time
  • The Laodicean('justice of the people')era begins The time of probation begins for us (to have a probationary time one must also have a judgment time when they are proven righteous)
  • The time of probation begins for us (to have a probationary time one must also have a judgment time when they are proven righteous)

Now when the Israelites had the Day of Atonement they were to afflict (humble themselves) their souls. They fasted on this day when the typical (earthly) high priest was in the Most Holy Place. But we are in the time when Christ is doing His antitypical work in the Most Holy Place, where Christ is our High Priest pleading for the saints...'my blood, my blood.'

During this time of the antitypical day of atonement we are humble ourselves before the Lord and be a holy priesthood. "But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:" 1Peter 2:9.

Now combine this with "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew16:19 makes you begin to realize that what we are doing today will be the same things that we are doing in Heaven. This is why our work on earth which God has given us is so important. In fact, Christ sent the Holy Spirit to strengthen us so that we may be good.

Will we be eating flesh foods in heaven? Will we be killing the innocent animals to enjoy a big ole' steak? No.

So how do we know that we are to humble ourselves in the manner of refusing flesh foods?

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you." Act 3:19-22

  • Repent
  • Convert
  • Sins not only forgiven, but blotted out (blotted is better because they can never be remembered)
  • Refreshing comes from the Holy Spirit...we all need the Holy Spirit or we will grieve
  • Heaven must receive us with the restitution of all things - 1 : an act of restoring or a condition of being restored: as a : a restoration of something to its rightful owner b : a making good of or giving an equivalent for some injury


First are we sure that we are using the word good for it's actual meaning according to the Lord? Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.Gen 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Good is without sin.

Now here is an interesting verse: Jeremiah 6:16 "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where [is] the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk [therein]."

So we need to return to the old paths and take our stand before God and man. We need the good way. We need to be humble to the point where we remember that all we will do, is with a body (temple)which is directly owned by God. Will we set out to be careless with someone's elses property when we do not even own it, I pray not. We ONLY own a choice, so praise the Lord we have such blessings that we don't even deserve during our time of probation. What a kind and just God, so patient and longsuffering with a nation of people that do not deserve the grace He is giving to us freely.
AMEN,
Sr. Cheri

Posted By: Will

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/07/03 02:18 AM

I agree as well Daryl. I do not eat meat let alone any unclean meats because it is not healthy and you basically posion your body considering the high amounts of antibiotics, and sloppy quality of cattle feed that goes to feed these animals. God mentioned the specifics, and I totally agree, so I never thought that Revelation 12:17 included the levitical law as well only the moral law since that is how we know what sin is. Anyways thanks for the brief overview Cheri [Smile] I will pray and research this as I really do enjoy studying The Word of God. I am going to look ahead in our quarterly and see if this issue is covered in there since you mentioned we are in the antitypical day of atonement and I know that right now Christ is our High Priest and is in the heavenly Sanctuary pleading on our behalf. Thanks Cheri for the valuable info as I have heard how it works as I was growing up, but for some reason I am actually paying attention to it and wanting to learn more. So I pray that The Holy Spirit lead us and teach us in Jesus name. Thanks Daryl for creating this thread, and I hope more people post in here to get a variety of thoughts on this.

God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Cheri Fritz

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/07/03 05:34 AM

Dear Br. Will,

Here is a link to reading Br. Stephen Haskell's book "The Cross and It's Shadow."

For those that are not familiar...Stephen Haskell is one of the pioneers in the Seventh-day Adventist Chruch. This book is about the Sanctuary, and if any of you did not understand the Sanctuary, this is an excellant book. The Cross and Its Shadow

May the Lord bless the path of those that hunger and thirst after Christ,
Sr. Cheri
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/07/03 03:23 PM

As far as pork in particular goes,
quote:
Is. 66:15-17 For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many. They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine?s flesh, and the abomination, [all unclean animals] and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.
Thus those still eating pigs and mice when Christ returns won't be going anywhere. This verse is something all our friends of other churches need to know about if they intend to prepare for heaven.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/08/03 06:59 AM

quote:

Thus those still eating pigs and mice when Christ returns won't be going anywhere. This verse is something all our friends of other churches need to know about if they intend to prepare for heaven.

The problem with this issue is that many try and make eating a moral issue, which scripture indicates it is not. What I mean is that it is not an issue related to salvation as Bob seems to indicate. Clearly, judging someone because of what they eat is contrary to NT theology:

“1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.” Rom 14


Also, from a law standpoint, the kosher laws have in fact been removed:


“14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' " 17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") 20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' " Mark 7


“20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.” Rom 14


“23"Everything is permissible"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is constructive. 24Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. 25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."27If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.” 1 Cor 10
(Note – this was the meat market at Corinth, a very pagan city indeed! No kosher food there for sure.)

So we see that from both a judgment and law standpoint the kosher laws are not an issue.


Now some have raised the issue of health, such as Will. While this may be an issue related to the processing and handling of meat food, it’s not endemic to the type of meat. In other words, I can except that all meat may be suspect because of antibiotic use, etc.., that doesn’t mean that pork is worse for you than beef. So as far a health is concerned, all meat is on the same playing field.

Some may say that the kosher laws were given for health and therefore unclean meat would not be healthy. However, when you look back at when and why the kosher laws were given it doesn’t support that idea.


“1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.” Gen 9

Notice here that God gives man “everything”; “Everything that lives and moves will be food for you”. This means all animals. The term everything has no exceptions, it includes all.

Now what is interesting about this text is that God had already given man and/or Noah the understanding of what clean & unclean animals meant. Only clean animals were used for sacrifices (Gen 8:20).

So we see that even though God had given Noah the clean and unclean distinction for sacrificial purposes, He did not extend that to eating until Moses.

So since the clean & unclean distinction was given first for sacrificial or ceremonial purposes its basis was not health at all. So the fact is that the kosher laws were ceremonial in nature and not originally given for health reasons.

So while a case can be made today that all meats are unhealthy due to the processing, etc., it would be difficult to demonstrate from scripture that one type of animal is more or less unhealthy than another based soley on the clean/unclean label.

So for universal health reasons abstaining from meat may certainly be a good thing, but making it a moral issue or one that determines ones salvation is clearly not consistent with scripture.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/08/03 03:20 PM

Lobo,

How do you explain that text in Is. 66? It has to mean something. I see that you made no direct comments on the text itself.

quote:
The problem with this issue is that many try and make eating a moral issue, which scripture indicates it is not. What I mean is that it is not an issue related to salvation as Bob seems to indicate.
Try telling Adam that what you eat doesn't affect your salvation.

Do note that I'm not really the one who said that those eating mice and swine when Jesus comes aren't going anywhere. Isaiah said it, which means that God said it. And since God said it, I believe it.
quote:
Clearly, judging someone because of what they eat is contrary to NT theology:
The big issue in the NT was whether it was alright to eat things sacrificed to idols, not whether one could eat swine or not.

When the Judaizers accused Paul of teaching heresy (Acts 21:21), they never accused him of teaching folks to eat pork. Besides, it appears from Acts 24:14 and 25:8 that he would have denied such a charge.

But do note that even Acts 15 forbade Christians to eat blood, and things strangled. Eating blood was something not even Gentiles could do in OT times, since God forbade such to Noah and his descendents. The clean/unclean distinctions likewise go back to Noah. These kind of prohibitions were carried over into NT times, and even though someone may have accused Peter and James and Paul of judging them for eating blood, such accusations had no weight with the apostles. They had to be true to Scripture.
quote:
Also, from a law standpoint, the kosher laws have in fact been removed:
Do you have a text that plainly says so? The one you quoted does not, for it speaks concerning whether eating with unwashed hands will make one a sinner or not.

Besides, the text as you quoted it has been tampered with. "In saying this, Jesus declared" does not appear in the Greek. Who authorized the publisher of this Bible to tamper with the text like that, merely to support his or her own theology?

Further, the text says "all food," or "all meats" in the KJV. Can you find a text anywhere that calls pork "food" or, in KJV English, "meat." If God never gave swine or mice to be "food," then the text doesn't apply to swine or mice.

You quote specifically 1 Cor. 10. Read 1 Cor. 8:1, 4, 7, 10; 10:19, 28. These verses make clear that the issue being discussed is meat sacrificed to idols, not swine or mice.

Since this was the big issue in Corinth, we can conclude that this was the big issue in Rom. 14. Otherwise, we have no biblical way to determine what Paul was specifically talking about in Rom. 14. Rom. 14 itself does not say what Paul is talking about.
quote:
Notice here that God gives man "everything"; "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you". This means all animals. The term everything has no exceptions, it includes all.
Not necessarily. Sometimes Moses said "all," and then qualified it later.

For example, in Gen. 1 it says that man could eat the fruit of every tree, but Gen. 2 says that there was one exception. Gen. 6:19, 20 says that Noah was to bring all the animals aboard by twos, but in 7:2 it says that the clean beasts were to be by sevens.

Thus it is likely that Gen. 9 must be qualified by Lev. 11 and Deut. 14, and better yet, by Lev. 17:13. The council of Acts 15 based their decision largely upon Lev. 17 and 18, and it is in Lev. 17:13 where it indicates that Gentiles were forbidden to eat unclean animals as well as blood.

I see that you did not quote from 1 Tim. 4. When folk quote that one to me, saying that they can eat anything they want if they pray over it, I ask them if they really believe that.

I'd like to see someone who truly believes that put his fork where his mouth is. "Nothing to be refused," it says. Then grab some poison ivy leaves and make a salad. Don with your favorite dressing, garnish with diced mice, offer a prayer, and chow down.

The truth of the matter is that no one believes they can eat anything if they pray over it. To do so would be presumption.

[ July 08, 2003, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Bob Pickle ]
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/08/03 09:33 PM

quote:

How do you explain that text in Is. 66? It has to mean something. I see that you made no direct comments on the text itself.

I don’t know, it conflicts with the NT texts. But so do many other OT texts. For example, do you believe literal Israel is still God’s nation or people? If No, read Jer 31:35-37.

So I believe some prophecies were conditional, and Is 66 is one of them.


quote:

When the Judaizers accused Paul of teaching heresy (Acts 21:21), they never accused him of teaching folks to eat pork. Besides, it appears from Acts 24:14 and 25:8 that he would have denied such a charge.

You should study deeper into this issue as Paul did teach Gentiles differently than Jews. Besides, your comment conflicts with what Paul literal wrote in 1 Cor 10:25, so it is moot to argue about it.


Bob, in reading the rest of your post it just seems argumentative and contrary to scripture. You can believe what you want and discount the clear bible texts if you want, that is up to you. But as far as I’m concerned eating is not a moral issue. By making it one it diverts attention from the real issues of faith. This is a tactic I believe Satan loves.

Since you feel Paul supports your special eating habits, ;let me quote another one for you:

1 Timothy 4
”1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:”


Doctrine of devils, interesting!
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/09/03 03:02 PM

Re: Jer. 31:35-37. Since the olive tree still stands, and has but had most of the natural branches replaced by wild branches, I would think this passage could be literally true even today.

Re: 1 Cor. 10:25. You missed the clear Bible points that I gave above that deal with this.
quote:
1 Cor. 10:19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

1 Cor. 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord?s, and the fulness thereof:

When two texts on either side of the one you refer to say clearly that the issue under discussion is things offered to idols, neither you nor I have the right to say that the verse is talking about pork instead.

Re: "You can believe what you want and discount the clear bible texts if you want, .... Feel free to quote one.

Re: 1 Tim. 4. I assume you agree with my last post that 1 Tim. 4:1-5 cannot be used to support the idea that we can eat anything we want if we pray over it.

Analyzing the passage, we come up with these points, additional to the one mentioned in my last post.
  1. Swine are never called "food" or "meat" in Scripture.
  2. God didn't create certain animals to be received with thanksgiving.
  3. Those who think otherwise either don't believe or don't know the truth.
  4. And if we add vs. 5, the Word of God never sanctifies the hog.
According to Acts 15, Gentiles are expected today to still do what they were expected to do in OT times, except for sacrifices. That is the biblical principle we need to apply to all these issues.

Gentiles in OT times were never commanded to be circumcised, but they were prohibited from eating blood and pork, as pointed out above.

Re: "But as far as I'm concerned eating is not a moral issue. By making it one it diverts attention from the real issues of faith." Yet Adam would say differently, as I pointed out above. And:
quote:
Acts 15:19, 20 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Acts 15:28,29 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

If you are correct that eating is not a moral issue, though Adam got kicked out of the garden over that topic, why did the apostles say that these things were "necessary," three of the four which have to do with eating?

Every NT verse you quote must harmonize with the NT repetition of the OT prohibition against eating blood. If you say we can eat anything, then why can't we eat blood?

[ July 09, 2003, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Bob Pickle ]
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/09/03 07:16 PM

quote:

Re: Jer. 31:35-37. Since the olive tree still stands, and has but had most of the natural branches replaced by wild branches, I would think this passage could be literally true even today.

Sorry Bob, but Jeremiah did not have replacement theology in mind when he wrote that. He meant his people. The idea that gentiles would replace Israel in prophecy was a western idea originating from Rome around 200AD. But that is another issue.


quote:

When two texts on either side of the one you refer to say clearly that the issue under discussion is things offered to idols, neither you nor I have the right to say that the verse is talking about pork instead.

Bob, the context in which Paul made that statement was indeed related to food to idols, but his statement was not qualified and was empirical. In other words, saying that one can eat anything sold in a pagan meat market is an empirical statement in and of itself. If Paul had meant only kosher food sold in the meat market regardless of whether it had been offered to idols, he would have stated that.

The fact is also that when the Jerusalem council Officially accepted gentiles into the faith they gave them only four requirements, of which three were the kosher laws Acts 15:19-20). So if you want to make a case that the kosher laws also apply to gentiles (who are also not Jewish converts), then you have to show some biblical proof that they were given the kosher laws, commanded to keep the kosher laws, or even just instructed on the kosher laws. Yet, that just isn’t the case, is it?


quote:

Re: "You can believe what you want and discount the clear bible texts if you want, .... Feel free to quote one.

Gee, I thought I did. Here, I’ll do it again:

“25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it." 27If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.”

So lets see, Paul states we can eat “anything”, “everything”, “without raising questions of conscience”. Seems very clear to me. Contrary to what you tried to rationalize, there are no exceptions to the terms “anything” or “everything” accept as stated in Acts 15. And Paul did not qualify his statements further here. So we are left to believe exactly what he stated.


quote:

Re: 1 Tim. 4. I assume you agree with my last post that 1 Tim. 4:1-5 cannot be used to support the idea that we can eat anything we want if we pray over it.

It would depend on the situation. If you were starving in a place where you could not get other food, I believe God would protect you no matter what you ate or how poisonous it was. However, as a general rule I believe that your point, while being accurate, is not what Paul was referring to.

Paul was not trying to say that we could make things that are poisonous un-poisonous by praying over it. What Paul was saying is that all food was acceptable after we give thanks for it. So the key word here is “food”. Things that are poisonous were not used for food or considered food. So anything that was considered food could be eating.

Now, my point about this text was in verse 3 about the idea of special eating habits. The judaisers made a point of trying to force Jewish laws on gentiles (Gal 2:14) and the kosher laws were one. Remember, forcing gentiles to follow anything from the Torah that was not included in the Jerusalem council was considered a “burden” (Acts 15:28). So Paul here is reiterating his position that gentiles should not be made to follow Jewish laws or modification of Jewish laws.


quote:

Analyzing the passage, we come up with these points, additional to the one mentioned in my last post.
1. Swine are never called "food" or "meat" in Scripture.
2. God didn't create certain animals to be received with thanksgiving.
3. Those who think otherwise either don't believe or don't know the truth.
4. And if we add vs. 5, the Word of God never sanctifies the hog.

1. Contrary to your position, 1 Tim was not written for Jews. Paul at this time ministered exclusively to gentiles. So the fact that pigs were not called “food” for the Jews is really not an issue because it was not Jews Paul was addressing.

2. This is conjecture, as this is not stated in scripture. However, after the flood, of which unclean animals were saved on the ark, God told Noah that he could eat “everything that lives and moves”; that would include unclean animals as well. So whether unclean animals were created originally for food or not, God allowed it prior to Israel.

3. This is a judgment call that does not belong in our discussion.

4. True, sacrifices were always clean animals. That is why the clean/unclean distinction is ceremonial and not for health reasons.


quote:

According to Acts 15, Gentiles are expected today to still do what they were expected to do in OT times, except for sacrifices. That is the biblical principle we need to apply to all these issues.

You may want to actually read Acts 15 before you make an inaccurate statement like that. Only four things were required and none related to the inherent qualities of the food accept for blood. In other words, the clean/unclaen distinction between animals was not given to gentiles. Your attempt to take these four very specific things and apply them to all the kosher laws in not what is stated in scripture.


quote:

If you are correct that eating is not a moral issue, though Adam got kicked out of the garden over that topic, why did the apostles say that these things were "necessary," three of the four which have to do with eating?

Bob, I go by what is written in scripture, not what is not written. So I agree that the four things instructed to Gentiles in Acts 15 are “necessary”. However, on what BIBLICAL basis do you apply any of the other koshers laws to gentiles when clearly other things were considered a “burden”?


quote:

Every NT verse you quote must harmonize with the NT repetition of the OT prohibition against eating blood. If you say we can eat anything, then why can't we eat blood?

We can eat everything as stated by Paul unless “everything” was qualified by other information. As you pointed out, clearly blood was specifically qualified as being an exception to “everything”. Yet, we don’t find that same qualification for the type of meat eaten anywhere in the NT, why? Because it wasn’t an issue.

You see Bob, scripture indicates that we should not take away from it’s meaning. But it also states that we should not add either. By implying that we need to follow something that was never required, while other things specifically were required, you are adding to scripture. That is a no-no my friend.

Lastly, Adam was specifically told not to eat of the tree, so that has no bearing on our conversation as gentiles have never been specifically told to only eat kosher food or obey ALL the kosher laws. The fact that only a few kosher laws were required indicates that all the kosher laws were considered, but were rejected as being a “burden”.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/10/03 03:04 PM

quote:
Sorry Bob, but Jeremiah did not have replacement theology in mind when he wrote that. He meant his people. The idea that gentiles would replace Israel in prophecy was a western idea originating from Rome around 200AD.
But:
quote:
Romans 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
If Isaiah could be very bold on the grafting in of the gentiles, then I would think that the later prophet Jeremiah could know something of that topic as well.
quote:
... but his statement was not qualified and was empirical.
Are you willing to say this about all Scripture? Jesus said that we must hate our parents. He didn't explicitly qualify that. Does that mean it shouldn't be qualified?

I also gave you a few examples from Genesis where unqualified statements are later qualified, as in taking the animals on the ark only by twos, and in Adam being able to eat of every tree.
quote:
So if you want to make a case that the kosher laws also apply to gentiles (who are also not Jewish converts), then you have to show some biblical proof that they were given the kosher laws, commanded to keep the kosher laws, or even just instructed on the kosher laws.
I understand why you say so, but I believe this is incorrect.

Acts 15 doesn't say that the Gentile converts must abstain from murder, does it? Nor stealing. But those issues weren't under discussion in Acts 15. These were moral principles still considered to be binding.

When Acts 15 doesn't explicitly say that any other requirements were laid upon these converts, we must still qualify Acts 15 by other Scriptures.

And this is indeed what you do regarding 1 Cor. 10. 1 Cor. 10 says we can eat "anything," but you say that "anything" does not include blood.

My point remains this: That Gentiles in OT times were required to abstain from blood and unclean animals, and that whatever they were required to do in OT times they are still required to do, except for sacrifices.

If you want to prove my position wrong, you need to either demonstrate that there is an OT law for Gentiles that they don't have to keep in NT times, or demonstrate that they could eat pork in OT times. Can you do so?

That they were commanded to abstain from pork in OT times is clear:
quote:
Leviticus 17:13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.
Plus, if Noah had eaten one pig or elephant after the flood, there wouldn't be any left today. Thus the prohibition against eating pork was never just "Jewish."

Noah was told that he could eat every remes (whatever those were), not every animal.
quote:
Gee, I thought I did. Here, I?ll do it again:
The text you quote is about "meat" sacrficed to idols, and pork is never called "meat" in the Bible. Additionally, it never says "pork" or "swine" in the verse.

In light of the fact that Is. 66 says that anyone eating pork when Christ returns shall be lost, we need to have a clearer verse than the one you mention.

Find a text that calls pork "meat" or "food," and that specifically says that we can eat "pork" or other unclean animals.

It is your choice to call Is. 66 a conditional prophecy, but in light of the fact that not one verse in all the Bible explicitly says that pork is now "meat" or food, and lawful to eat, such a position is quite risky.
quote:
What Paul was saying is that all food was acceptable after we give thanks for it.
RE: this and your comments on my four points:

1. Find a text that explicitly calls pork "food" for anyone, Jew or Gentile.

2. My second point was not conjecture. Did God create rats and slugs to be received as food with thanksgiving? If you come over to my house and I offer you a plate of boiled slugs and fried rats, will you heed your interpretation of "nothing to be refused" and "ask no question for conscience sake"?

3. It isn't a judgment call. It's part of the text. The text says that these things are so for those who "believe and know the truth." If someone doesn't believe and know the truth, this this passage is not for them.

4. If the word of God never sanctifies the hog, as you admit, then the hog is not under discussion in 1 Tim. 4.

1 Tim. 4 is a prediction of the papal apostasy, which forbids their priests and nuns from marrying, and which used to forbid the eating of even clean meat on Friday.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/10/03 03:22 PM

I thought of an alternate approach you could take to support your position regarding Acts 15. You could substantiate that one of those four necessary things was Jewish only, and didn't apply to Gentiles in OT times.

If that were the case, then your point that only certain exclusively Jewish laws were placed on Gentiles would be valid.

My point is that nothing exclusively Jewish, like circumcision, has been laid upon Gentile believers.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/10/03 07:26 PM

quote:

If Isaiah could be very bold on the grafting in of the gentiles, then I would think that the later prophet Jeremiah could know something of that topic as well.

That was nothing new, but you seem to be confusing the two. Gentiles by birth could always become Israel if the converted to Judaism, that is what you are calling “grafted” in. However, gentiles becoming God’s people as Christians does not mean they are Jews or are ever thought of as Israel. This was clearly understood by all the bible writers:

Gentiles:
“"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," 26and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'” Hosea 1:10


Israel:
“"Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. 28For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality.” Isaiah 10:22,23


quote:

Are you willing to say this about all Scripture? Jesus said that we must hate our parents. He didn't explicitly qualify that. Does that mean it shouldn't be qualified?

Bob, you need to read more carefully. Jesus never stated we should hate our parents. He stated we should love and honor our parents and if they go against God we should love God more than them.


quote:

My point remains this: That Gentiles in OT times were required to abstain from blood and unclean animals, and that whatever they were required to do in OT times they are still required to do, except for sacrifices.

If you want to prove my position wrong, you need to either demonstrate that there is an OT law for Gentiles that they don't have to keep in NT times, or demonstrate that they could eat pork in OT times. Can you do so?

Bob, the only gentiles in the OT that were allowed to follow the torah law became Jews (Isaiah 56; Acts 2:11; 13:43). However, in the NT gentile believers in JESUS did not become Jews, they were Christians. So you cannot apply Jewish laws to Christians unless you have some text that requires Christians to keep all the torah laws, and there isn’t any.

So you can’t start from a position that implies that gentiles (non-Jewish converts to Judaism) were required to or given the torah law in the OT, because they weren’t. However, if you want to prove that gentiles, who did not convert to Judaism, were required to keep the torah law, go ahead. But I think we both know that wasn’t the case.

So if no gentiles, who had not converted to Judaism, kept the torah in the OT there is no assumption that they would keep any of it in the NT. So only those thing given to them in the NT apply.

So if we look at the NT we see many moral laws and the four torah laws given to gentile Christians, but strangely enough only the three in Acts 15 relate to the kosher laws.

So if you can prove from the OT that gentiles, who did not convert to Judaism, were given and required to follow the torah law as a people, I will then need to prove that they were then not required to follow the kosher laws in the NT. However, unless you can prove they had the law in the OT, there is no precedence in the OT to base your assumption that gentiles should follow the kosher laws unless told not to do so in the NT

Note- God tried very hard to keep Israel from following the pagan practices of the gentiles around Israel. That is why God required the INDIVIDUAL gentiles living in and among Israel to follow the torah practices, so they wouldn’t corrupt Israel by their pagan practices. So using individual cases will not support your case in that God gave Israel the law as a people, not individuals. So you need to show the kosher laws being given to gentiles AS A PEOPLE.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/11/03 03:15 PM

quote:
Gentiles by birth could always become Israel if the converted to Judaism, that is what you are calling "grafted" in.
No it isn't. I'm using the terminology of Paul from Rom. 11:17, 19, 23, 24. Paul there refers to believing Gentiles who have not converted to Judaism as those who have been "graffed" in.
quote:
However, gentiles becoming God's people as Christians does not mean they are Jews or are ever thought of as Israel.
Not so. Look at the last two verses of Romans 2, for example. Non-Jewish Christians are there called Jews if they are circumcised in their hearts, even though they are uncircumcised in their flesh.
quote:
Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

quote:
Bob, you need to read more carefully. Jesus never stated we should hate our parents.
Not so.
quote:
Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
quote:
Bob, the only gentiles in the OT that were allowed to follow the torah law became Jews (Isaiah 56; Acts 2:11; 13:43).
We're not talking about the Torah law. We're talking about not eating blood and unclean animals. Gentiles have always been forbidden to eat such things, as Lev. 17:13 tells us.
quote:
So you cannot apply Jewish laws to Christians unless you have some text that requires Christians to keep all the torah laws, and there isn't any.
You have to first demonstrate that we're talking about "Jewish" laws. You haven't done so.
quote:
God tried very hard to keep Israel from following the pagan practices of the gentiles around Israel. That is why God required the INDIVIDUAL gentiles living in and among Israel to follow the torah practices, so they wouldn't corrupt Israel by their pagan practices.
Where does it say in the Bible that this was the case?

Does that mean that individual Gentiles were required to be circumcised if they lived in Israel? In other words, were all Gentiles living in Israel required to become Jews? Was it therefore illegal for any Gentile to live in Israel?

Outside of Israel, does that mean that it was permissible for Gentiles to bow to images, eat blood, murder, steal and fornicate?

Some laws were universal. Some just applied to the Jews. Not eating blood was universal. Always has been, always will be. Circumcision never was universal.

Our position is that the restrictions against eating unclean animals have always been universal, just like the Sabbath.
quote:
2 Corinthians 6:17, 18 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
  1. Paul here says that if we want God to be our Father, we need to not touch the unclean thing.
  2. Is. 66 says that if you're eating pork when Christ returns, you'll be consumed. The text doesn't say that it's only talking about literal Jews.
  3. Rev. 18:2 refers to certain birds still being "unclean" at the very end of time.
  4. Lev. 17 indicates that abstaining from eating unclean animals is part of universal law, not Jewish law.
  5. Noah wasn't told to bring enough unclean animals on board to have any to eat after the flood.
Posted By: Will

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/11/03 05:40 PM

In order to provide good info on this topic I think a comparison should be made here.
When God instructed the Isrealites what foods were clean and unclean He did so for a reason, and this reason has to do with health. The pig which is one of God's creations is not an abominable creature, but its just not the healthiest meat to consume. When preparing pork whether it be pork roast, pork chops,bacon, ribs or whatever you need to serioiusly make sure that the meat is cooked so well because if not you run a risk of getting trychina (spelling is not accurate) and this is a worm that forms a cyst into the muscle found in pork. Even though today the meat industry will tell you that the pigs are fed grain etc etc.. which is not correct eithre since we are talking about big business and the ppigs, and cattle today are fed a combination of grain and bone meal which is basically animal parts that are mixed into the feed for more protein which is hwy there is an unusual amount of bacteria and viruses found in meat today..Soryr if I went off track there but that had to be covered. Anyhow pork is not healthy to eat.. you can find the information about trychina in your high school science book hopefully..It was there when I was in high school. Anyways I wanted to share that info because we can get off track saying "The gentiles this" or "Thats only for the Isrealites"..remember trychina is for anyone and is not prejudice, and God has always knows what kind of animals can be considered healthy to consume and which ones should basically handle eating garbage etc etc..

God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/11/03 08:20 PM

quote:

No it isn't. I'm using the terminology of Paul from Rom. 11:17, 19, 23, 24. Paul there refers to believing Gentiles who have not converted to Judaism as those who have been "graffed" in.

Ok, that makes more sense. However, you really should read more of Romans 11, because then you would see that gentiles are the “wild olive branch” and Israel is the “cultivated olive tree”. Paul specifically used this analogy because it demonstrates how Jews fit with Gentiles in the kingdom. The fact is that you can physically graft almost any type of branch from one tree to another, however, that never changes the tree it’s grafted to or the branch.

So grafting a wild olive branch into a cultivated olive tree never makes the wild olive branch produce cultivated olives and never makes the cultivated tree produce wild olives on the other (non-grafted) branches.

So what Paul is telling us with his analogy is that Jews and gentiles can and are together in the kingdom. They both draw spiritual nourishment from the roots (Jesus), but the Jews never become gentiles and the Gentiles never become Jews.



quote:

Not so. Look at the last two verses of Romans 2, for example. Non-Jewish Christians are there called Jews if they are circumcised in their hearts, even though they are uncircumcised in their flesh.

Bob, I’m starting to worry about your reading skills. Is this how you read scripture; proof-texting all the way? Please look at the context of Romans 2 starting with verse 17 and you will see that this entire passage is directed to literal Jews. Paul was not addressing gentiles. So please, lets stop with the out of context quotes, ok?


As far as Luke 14, please stop proof-texting. It is a very inaccurate and uneducated method of exegesis. Anyone reading Luke 14 in context would know and understand that Jesus was referring to what believers would have to give up to follow Him. In other words, the cost of being a follower of Jesus, see verse 33.


quote:

We're not talking about the Torah law. We're talking about not eating blood and unclean animals. Gentiles have always been forbidden to eat such things, as Lev. 17:13 tells us.

So because God required gentiles living AMONG the Jews to follow the Jewish kosher laws, you then apply that to all gentiles, even those not living among Israel? Wow! What liberties you take with scripture.

Sorry, I don’t buy it. Since Israel was given the kosher laws AS A PEOLPLE, for you to prove that it also applied to ALL GENTILES you need to show where the kosher laws were given to ALL gentiles JUST LIKE ISRAEL.


“ 'Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth,” Lev 17:13

Ok, were waiting?


quote:

You have to first demonstrate that we're talking about "Jewish" laws. You haven't done so.

Really? My contextually challenged friend, the context of the text you just quoted (Lev 17:13) was to Israel as a law for Israel. A law to or for Israel means it is a Jewish law. Get it?

“1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites and say to them: 'This is what the LORD has commanded…….” Lev 17

Guess what, when the Lord “commands” something to the “Israelites” IT’S A JEWISH LAW!


quote:

Where does it say in the Bible that this was the case?

Does that mean that individual Gentiles were required to be circumcised if they lived in Israel? In other words, were all Gentiles living in Israel required to become Jews? Was it therefore illegal for any Gentile to live in Israel?

Outside of Israel, does that mean that it was permissible for Gentiles to bow to images, eat blood, murder, steal and fornicate?

Some laws were universal. Some just applied to the Jews. Not eating blood was universal. Always has been, always will be. Circumcision never was universal.

Our position is that the restrictions against eating unclean animals have always been universal, just like the Sabbath.

Ok, let me take each one of these questions individually:

“Where does it say in the Bible that this was the case?” (referring to God requiring gentiles in the Jewish community to keep Jewish laws)

Gentiles living with Jews required to keep circumcision: Gen 17:9-12

Gentiles living with Jews required to keep the Sabbath: Ex 23:12

Gentiles living with Jews required to keep the day of atonement: Lev 16:29

Gentiles living with Jews required to give burnt offerings a sacrifices: Lev 17:8

Gentiles living with Jews required to keep all the sexual relations laws: Lev 18:1-26(26)

Gentiles living with Jews required to not sacrifice to idols: Lev 20:2

Gentiles living with Jews required to not blaspheme the name of the Lord: Lev 24:16

Etc. etc. etc….

Gentiles living with Jews required to keep ALL the same laws as the Jews: Lev 24:22; Number 15:15-16, 29, etc..

So we see that God required ALL gentiles or non-Jews living among them to keep ALL the Jewish civil and sacred laws. Not just the kosher laws and the Sabbath.

So why did God require this?

“9 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD , and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. 13 You must be blameless before the LORD your God.” Deut 18


Why? Because He didn’t want Israel to follow the gentile pagan practices. So God required gentiles living among Israel to keep all the Jewish laws and those gentile nations not living in the Jewish community were driven away from Israel so Israel would not be influenced by them.


Next question: “Outside of Israel, does that mean that it was permissible for Gentiles to bow to images, eat blood, murder, steal and fornicate?”

While God did not like what gentiles outside Israel did, He did not require anything of them: “In the past, he [God] let all nations go their own way.” Acts 14:16

God also never gave the gentiles living outside the Jewish communities any of the Jewish laws: “19 He has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel. 20 He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws.” Ps 147 (Also Deut 4:5-8)

So we see these facts from scripture:

1. God required gentiles living in the Jewish communities to keep all the Jewish laws
2. God allowed the gentiles outside the Jewish communities to “go their own way” and they were not given nor did they know the Jewish laws.


So your idea of “universal laws” is contrary to scripture. That may be your belief, but I don’t see that supported by scripture. So the facts seem to be that since gentiles (as a people) did not know about and were not given any of the Jewish laws, there is no way they would be following the kosher laws in the NT. As such, you still have to prove that the kosher laws were given to gentiles as a people to support your view.


quote:

When God instructed the Isrealites what foods were clean and unclean He did so for a reason, and this reason has to do with health.

Will, perhaps you have not been following this discussion very closely, but we have already established that God gave the clean/unclean distinction related to sacrifices long before the distinction was used for eating.

Here let me lay this out for you quickly; God gave the clean/unclean distinction in Gen 7 and probably much earler than that for Cain/Able, then in Gen 9:1-5 (after the flood) He stated that man could eat “Everything that lives and moves”. So even after the flood all meat/animals were ok to eat. It wasn’t until Moses that God actually extended the clean/unclean distinction to food.

So since the clean/unclean distinction was originally given for sacrifices, and not food, the distinction is purely ceremonial. As sacrifices were ceremonial in nature, so is the clean/unclean distinction that was originally given with sacrifices. So there is no scriptural basis to believe that when the clean/unclean laws were extended to food that it was for health reasons.

Now understand this is from a purely religious or moral perspective. I fully agree that today there are valid health reasons to limit one’s diet to certain foods. However, trying to support that limited diet for religious reasons is really not accurate.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/12/03 06:14 AM

quote:
So please, lets stop with the out of context quotes, ok?
Rom. 2 still calls Gentile believers "Jews," regardless of what sort of context one claims is there. This is a standard passage used by all who believe that the church is the Israel of today.

But if you don't like that one, here are a couple more:
quote:
Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Galatians 3:29 And if ye be Christ?s, then are ye Abraham?s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

quote:
As far as Luke 14, please stop proof-texting.
You stated previously that 1 Cor. 11:25 doesn't need to be qualified by vss. 19 and 28. I said, What about where Jesus said we should hate our parents? Shouldn't we qualify that? You said he never said that. I showed you where He did in Luke 14:26. Now, besides asking me not to quote Scripture, you have proceeded to qualify that verse, which lends support to the idea that we must qualify 1 Cor. 11:25 by vss. 19 and 28.

As far as proof-texting goes, Christ repeatedly quoted Scripture when answering the devil and men. I request the liberty to do the same. Of course, context is important, just like the fact that the context of 1 Cor. 11:19, 28 sheds light on vs. 25.

Were you proof texting by quoting 1 Cor. 11:25 out of context?
quote:
So because God required gentiles living AMONG the Jews to follow the Jewish kosher laws, ...
But you have yet to demonstrate that the laws against eating unclean animals is "Jewish." Your statement begs the question. You must first prove your point.

In other words, I deny that Scripture anywhere calls these laws Jewish. I maintain that they are universal laws, that have always applied to everyone, for the reasons stated, just like the Sabbath and tithing.

Have you not noticed that there is a total absence of controversy in the NT over eating pork? The judaizers made a fuss over circumcision, and Peter got into trouble for merely visiting and eating in a Gentile's house, but not once did any judaizer ever accuse Paul or Peter of eating pork.

Just like the absence of a controversy over the Sabbath, this stark silence in the NT is evidence that these things were never an issue. Gentile believers kept these universal precepts, giving judaizers nothing to complain about.
quote:
A law to or for Israel means it is a Jewish law. Get it?
Really, you ought to be nicer.

That text from Lev. 17 concerns primarily not eating blood, a prohibition that was a universal law, not a Jewish law, as you admit. But the immediate context gives no hint of that in the manner that you require.

Another important point is the rationale behind abstaining:
quote:
Leviticus 11:44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Leviticus 11:45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

Deuteronomy 14:2 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.

Deuteronomy 14:21 Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother?s milk.

It's part of holy living, which is still important for both Jewish and Gentile believers today:
quote:
Hebrews 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

1 Peter 1:15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

1 Peter 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

quote:
Gentiles living with Jews required to keep circumcision: Gen 17:9-12
Abraham was not a Jew.

Since Ex. 12:48 indicates that sojourners did not have to be circumcised. a difference must therefore be made between slaves or servants, and independently living sojourners.

Further, if all sojourners were circumcised, they would all then be Jews. There would never be a true Gentile sojourner if your suggestion were correct.
quote:
Gentiles living with Jews required to keep the day of atonement: Lev 16:29
Or rather, they were not permitted to work on that day. Since they were prohibited from observing the Passover, I'm not sure we can say that they were required to keep the Day of Atonement. But maybe they were.
quote:
Gentiles living with Jews required to give burnt offerings a sacrifices: Lev 17:8
Or rather, if they did offer a sacrifice, they had to do it in a certain place. But that Gentiles were required to offer blood sacrifices can be demonstrated from Gen. 4. Sacrifices were part of the universal law, not the Jewish.
quote:
Gentiles living with Jews required to keep all the sexual relations laws: Lev 18:1-26(26)
And so are Gentile believers today, according to Acts 15. Which is why I said that the council of Acts 15 based its decision on the universal precepts of Lev. 17 and 18.

The last two examples and the second example you gave are dealt with in the universal code known as the 10 Commandments.
quote:
Why? Because He didn?t want Israel to follow the gentile pagan practices. So God required gentiles living among Israel to keep all the Jewish laws and those gentile nations not living in the Jewish community were driven away from Israel so Israel would not be influenced by them.
But you missed a very important point:
quote:
Leviticus 18:25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
Because the Canaanites, before the Israelites ever got there, had violated these UNIVERSAL precepts, that's why God ordered their destruction. So says Scripture.
quote:
While God did not like what gentiles outside Israel did, He did not require anything of them: "In the past, he [God] let all nations go their own way." Acts 14:16
That's rather radical.
quote:
Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Thus, following your statement to its logical conclusion, Gentiles living outside of Israel never committed any sin, and thus need no Savior to save them from transgressions they never committed.

The fact that Paul says that all have sinned, and that by the law is the knowledge of sin, proves that there was a universal law that even Gentiles living outside of Israel were required to obey.

And you forgot what you already admitted, that not eating blood was a universal law dating back to Noah, required of all Gentiles.

God still lets all nations walk in their own ways. Not that they won't get into trouble if they do so.

An ineresting concept in Judaism is that there is more than one kind of proselyte.

You have the full proselyte, the Gentile who became a Jew. He did this by being circumcised, and baptized, and by offering sacrifice.

Then you have a proselyte of the gate, one who remained a Gentile, but who kept the precepts of Noah. He was not circumcised, but he didn't eat blood and abstained from idolatry and polytheism.

Thus Judaism way way back recognized the fact that there were universal laws, including the universal prohibition against blood given to Noah.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/14/03 07:21 PM

quote:

Rom. 2 still calls Gentile believers "Jews," regardless of what sort of context one claims is there. This is a standard passage used by all who believe that the church is the Israel of today.

No so:

“17Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth-- 21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker. 28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.” Romans 2:17-29

Facts: Paul’s intended audience “call themselves Jews”, “blaspheme God among the gentiles”, “have the written code and circumcision”, are “Jews outwardly”.

So lets see who fits these descriptions:

“call themselves Jews” – Jews think they are physical descendants of Abraham (John 8:31-33)
“blaspheme God among the gentiles” – Literal Jews have done this (Ez 36:22) descendants
“have the written code and circumcision” – Jews (Israel) Rom 9:4 physical
“Jews outwardly” – Jews actually physical descendants of Isaac (Gen 21:12)

So it is clear that Paul was not addressing gentiles in this passage. Frankly, I’m frustrated that you made me go to this length to prove you wrong.


‘1I speak the truth in Christ--I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit-- 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. 6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children.” Romans 9

Facts: Paul is a Jew and is here addressing his people, vs 3. Paul also states that not all those who are literal descendants of Israel (vs 6) are considered Abraham’s seed (vs 7).

This means just because you are a literal Jew does not mean you are Abraham’s seed.

Abraham’s seed = All (Jew & Gentile) who believe in Jesus (Gal 3:16, 29)
Isaac’s seed = Literal Jews (Gen 21:12)

So as with the previous text you quoted, you are incorrect. Paul is clearly AGAIN addressing his own people, Israel. He is saying that just because they are Jews does not mean they are saved or counted as Abraham’s seed. Non-saved Jews are counted as Isaac’s seed, not Abraham’s seed.


Lastly, you quote of Gal 3:29 was actually correct, although you were incorrect about what you think it means. Please understand that ONLY Jews that believe in Jesus are counted as Abraham’s seed. It doesn’t matter what Jews think they are. What matters is what scripture and the prophets say they are. So since even Jews are not considered Abraham’s seed, why would you think Abraham’s seed was considered Israel, when Israel’s descendants are counted through Isaac? You are in error.


quote:

But you have yet to demonstrate that the laws against eating unclean animals is "Jewish." Your statement begs the question. You must first prove your point.

Gee Bob, are you serious?

“1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: 3 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud………..” Lev 11:1-47


These kosher laws were given to whom? Israelites!

Consider it proven!


quote:

In other words, I deny that Scripture anywhere calls these laws Jewish. I maintain that they are universal laws, that have always applied to everyone, for the reasons stated, just like the Sabbath and tithing.

As can be seen, I just proved (above) that the kosher laws were given to the Jews as a people. So all you have to do to prove your point is show they are also given to Gentiles as a people. If you can do that then you can apply them to all people, or make them “universal”. If not, you are incorrect.


quote:

Have you not noticed that there is a total absence of controversy in the NT over eating pork? The judaizers made a fuss over circumcision, and Peter got into trouble for merely visiting and eating in a Gentile's house, but not once did any judaizer ever accuse Paul or Peter of eating pork.

Bob, you REALLY need to study your bible more and the church doctrines less. The Judaisers focused on circumcision because it was considered the entry point into Judaism. When a gentile became converted to Judaism the FIRST thing was circumcision (Gen 17:12). So the judaiser felt that the believers were becoming Jewish converts (as you seem to believe), but Paul help clear them of that idea.

Anyway, the fact is that the Jerusalem council considered all the law or Moses for gentile CHRISTIAN believers (Acts 15:5) and only required the four things.


quote:

Just like the absence of a controversy over the Sabbath, this stark silence in the NT is evidence that these things were never an issue. Gentile believers kept these universal precepts, giving judaizers nothing to complain about.

We are not talking about the Sabbath, but since you brought it up, it was not without controversy:

“16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” Col 2

“8Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9But now that you know God--or rather are known by God--how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.” Gal 4

“5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.” Romans 14


Anyway, I guess we can see that Paul also had something to say about keeping special days like the Sabbath. But that is another issue.


quote:

Since Ex. 12:48 indicates that sojourners did not have to be circumcised. a difference must therefore be made between slaves or servants, and independently living sojourners.

Further, if all sojourners were circumcised, they would all then be Jews. There would never be a true Gentile sojourner if your suggestion were correct.

No, the difference is that one gentile is living there as a gentile, the other is a Jewish convert. As I mentioned, circumcision was the entry point to Judaism. So while gentiles living among Jews needed to keep most the Jewish laws, they only got circumcised if they were converting to Judaism.


quote:

Thus, following your statement to its logical conclusion, Gentiles living outside of Israel never committed any sin, and thus need no Savior to save them from transgressions they never committed.

This statement shows that you don’t understand the gospel.

“Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.” Rom 3:19

I’m sure this quote from Paul is your point, right?

Well guess what: “All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.” Rom 2:12

Notice that those under the law (Jews) and those apart from it still die. Remember, death comes from sin. So why or how can someone who is apart from or not under the Jewish law also die? There is in fact a universal law, but it is not the Jewish law. The Jewish law is based on the precepts of the universal moral law, but the two are not the same. That is how gentile pagans, who do not know the Jewish law, can by nature or instinctively follow the moral principles found in the Jewish law (Rom 2:14).

Your mistake is thinking that the ceremonial aspects of the OT law like the Sabbath, tithe, kosher laws, etc are “moral” and universal in nature. The universal laws are those that are moral in nature like, not killing, fornicating, adultery, etc.

So you are correct there is a universal law that all men are held to, it’s just not the ceremonial Jewish laws.


quote:

And you forgot what you already admitted, that not eating blood was a universal law dating back to Noah, required of all Gentiles.

I suppose you are correct here. If it was given after the flood it would be for all mankind. So not eating blood would be probably the only universal ceremonial law for all mankind.


quote:

Thus Judaism way way back recognized the fact that there were universal laws, including the universal prohibition against blood given to Noah.

And on what biblical basis do you include clean/unclean food, etc. to this list?
Posted By: Cheri Fritz

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/14/03 08:15 PM

Dear Lobo,

With the Lord there is great patience, in fact when we are His the gift of fruits of the Spirit are given on us. Frustration is not the fruit of Jesus. So take caution that you not blame someone else for you taking temptation in on you because that is not well with Jesus either. Look within when there is sin and remove it first is what Christ said. (Matt 7:3,4,5)

The Gentiles were taught to accept by faith over the law, and what does faith do from the time of Adam till present truth? God writes His laws in the hearts of those that will accept Christ. All biblical.

If you make note of the two most important commandments that Christ spoke of, you will have to agree they are what the ten commandments are based on. You see the first four commandments that God wrote in stone teach HOW TO LOVE HIM. And the second set of six teach HOW TO LOVE OUR NEIGHBOR. So to think that the Jews and the Gentiles are taught different governments is not so.

God's government (law) is based on the foundation of love. God has not changed from the beginning.

You may continue making your argument, as I believe you will. But it does make it truthful.

I would like to have you consider that you may not have all the right answers, that perhaps your heart could be humbled to consider that your preception is flawed. But do this with the Holy Spirit, fast on it. Seek the humility of Christ in all things and all things will be revealed.

I will tell you from experience that we must resist the will of pride. Why? Because it will surely be the death of us.

Sr. Cheri
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/14/03 09:10 PM

quote:

The Gentiles were taught to accept by faith over the law, and what does faith do from the time of Adam till present truth? God writes His laws in the hearts of those that will accept Christ. All biblical.

Very true Cheri. But what law?


quote:

If you make note of the two most important commandments that Christ spoke of, you will have to agree they are what the ten commandments are based on. You see the first four commandments that God wrote in stone teach HOW TO LOVE HIM. And the second set of six teach HOW TO LOVE OUR NEIGHBOR. So to think that the Jews and the Gentiles are taught different governments is not so.

Sorry Cheri, that is what you want to believe, but that is NOT what scripture states. Do you even know that “love your neighbor as yourself” is not in the ten commandments? In fact, this commandment is in the torah law (Lev 19:18), not the table of stone.

So if there was not a specific command like this in the OT I could agree that symbolically the ten c’s support what you have stated. However, since there is a specific command in the torah for “love your neighbor as yourself”, I cannot agree. This means that you cannot apply this to only the ten c’s.

In other words, the entire law given to Israel can support Love for God and love for man, but NOT just the tables of stone. So when Jesus stated this He meant the entire 613 laws, not just the ten.


quote:

God's government (law) is based on the foundation of love. God has not changed from the beginning.

I agree. But the level of love God required of Israel was not the same as Jesus is requiring. That is why divorce was permitted before Jesus 1st advent (Deut 24:1-4; Matt 19:7-8). So the OT law is really not up to the moral level that Jesus came and required.


quote:

I would like to have you consider that you may not have all the right answers, that perhaps your heart could be humbled to consider that your preception is flawed. But do this with the Holy Spirit, fast on it. Seek the humility of Christ in all things and all things will be revealed.

I would like you to consider that that process is exactly how I came to the beliefs I know hold. So while my beliefs my not be the “right answers” for you, they are for the Holy Spirit and God. So if you don’t like my beliefs, perhaps you should take it up with the Lord.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/15/03 04:11 PM

Lobo,
quote:
28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly,
You really ought to use a more literal translation. The word "only" is not in the text. And thus you did not prove me wrong.

Paul is telling Jews that they aren't really Jews if they aren't converted. And he's telling them that Gentiles that are converted are Jews in God's sight.

Here is another one:
quote:
Philippians 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
quote:
Non-saved Jews are counted as Isaac's seed, not Abraham?s seed.
How can a non-saved Jew be a son of Isaac and not a son of Abraham, when Isaac was Abraham's son? The other way around would make sense. Besides:
quote:
Rom. 9:6-8 For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
Isaac was the child of promise, and thus Paul here is denying that unconverted Jews are counted as children of promise, as children of Isaac.
quote:
These kosher laws were given to whom? Israelites!

Consider it proven!

No, that doesn't prove it.

Another example is the Sabbath and the entire Decalogue. People use your argument to try to prove that the 10 are just for the Jews, even though Jesus explicitly said He made the Sabbath for Adam. (The Greek phrase for "man" in Mark 2:27 corresponds to the Hebrew phrase for Adam and mankind in the first 11 chapters of Genesis.)

Does Ex. 20:2 mean that Gentiles were not sinning when they murdered and stole and fornicated? Of course not. So just because we have Ex. 20:2 doesn't mean that the 10 aren't for Gentiles too.
quote:
So all you have to do to prove your point is show they are also given to Gentiles as a people.
Which I did:
  1. Only 2 of each unclean animal were taken on the ark, while 7 of the clean were taken aboard. If Noah had been allowed to eat pork, we wouldn't have any pigs today.
  2. Lev. 17 indicates that Gentiles could not eat unclean animals, even though other Kosher laws did not apply to them. For example, Deut. 14:21 says that Israelites could not eat animals that died of themselves, but strangers could. Yet strangers could not eat unclean animals according to Lev. 17.
  3. Is. 66 says those eating pork when Christ comes will be lost.
  4. 2 Cor. 6:17, 18, says that if we want God to be our Father, we must not touch the unclean thing.
  5. Abstaining from unclean animals is part of holy living, and holy living is a NT requirement.
You cannot produce one text from the NT that explicitly says that Gentiles can eat pork, or break the fourth commandment. The texts you quote neither explicitly mention unclean animals nor the seventh-day Sabbath.

Rom. 14 doesn't say what sort of days it's talking about. Neither does Galatians. Col. 2:14 excludes the 10 Commandments from consideration, since they weren't handwriting, can't be blotted out, and can't be nailed. Col. 2:16 is talking about sabbath days, plural, a fact your version ignores, sabbaths that were shadows, which ties them in with the 7 annual sabbaths of Lev. 23, not the 4th Commandment.

quote:
Anyway, the fact is that the Jerusalem council considered all the law or Moses for gentile CHRISTIAN believers (Acts 15:5) and only required the four things.
But I'm sure you don't mean from this that that council was telling Gentiles they could steal and murder and lie. And thus you would admit that those four things were not the only things required of Gentiles. Universal laws like the Sabbath and abstaining from unclean animals would be required too.
quote:
Well guess what: "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law." Rom 2:12
As I already quoted, where there is no law, there is no transgression. Now someone can be ignorant of the law, and not have it in their homes, reading it all the time, but that fact does not make the law non-existent. They are still sinning, because there is a law that says they are.

And as you admit, there is a universal law, and thus the Gentiles of the OT were sinning when they transgressed that universal law. The difference is what you and I think was part of that universal law.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/16/03 12:44 AM

quote:

You really ought to use a more literal translation. The word "only" is not in the text. And thus you did not prove me wrong.

I never quibble over translations. But it doesn’t really matter. The word "only" being in or out doesn’t change the intent of Paul.


quote:

Paul is telling Jews that they aren't really Jews if they aren't converted. And he's telling them that Gentiles that are converted are Jews in God's sight.

And yet there is no text in scripture that states Gentile Christians are Jews or are Israel. We are all the people of God, but that is not the same as being a Jew as Rev 9 and many other texts makes clear.

As for Phil 3:3, I guess you missed, as you have in over other text you quoted, the part in verse 5 where Paul clarifies what he means by flesh by saying: “I myself have reasons for such confidence."

"If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin,”

Gee, maybe Paul is talking about the pagan tribe of Benjamin? Come on, can we please get serious!


quote:

How can a non-saved Jew be a son of Isaac and not a son of Abraham, when Isaac was Abraham's son? The other way around would make sense.

The truth of scripture does not depend on whether it makes sense to you or not. What is stated in scripture is the truth whether you want to believe it or not and scripture states: “and she said to Abraham, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac." 11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. 12 But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Gen 21

So according to God, Abraham’s seed are counted through Isaac.


quote:

No, that doesn't prove it.

Another example is the Sabbath and the entire Decalogue. People use your argument to try to prove that the 10 are just for the Jews, even though Jesus explicitly said He made the Sabbath for Adam. (The Greek phrase for "man" in Mark 2:27 corresponds to the Hebrew phrase for Adam and mankind in the first 11 chapters of Genesis.)

That is a manipulation of scripture. The word for man as used in hundreds of other passages did not specifically mean Adam. Since Adam was the first man that is the word that is used to indicate a man. However, that doesn’t mean Jesus meant Adam specifically. If you think that’s what Jesus meant, then you have demolished your own point as neither you nor I are Adam. So that means the Sabbath was only made for Adam alone.

Anyway, to prove that the Sabbath was given to mankind and just not Israel you have to show one text were anyone after God in Eden kept the Sabbath before Moses.


quote:

Does Ex. 20:2 mean that Gentiles were not sinning when they murdered and stole and fornicated? Of course not. So just because we have Ex. 20:2 doesn't mean that the 10 aren't for Gentiles too.

Bob, you error because you don’t know the scriptures; to quote a great Man. The moral laws like murder, etc. are not the 10 C’s. All the 613 laws and the 10C’s are based on God’s moral precepts, but they are not the same. How else could gentile pagans instinctively or by nature follow God’s law when they didn’t know it?

“(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,” Rom 2:14

Paul here is contrasting the moral law with the torah law. So the law here that gentiles are naturally keeping is the moral law, not the torah or tables of stone because that law Paul states they did not have.

So this is the law that gentiles broke, not the torah law or 10 C’s that was never given to them.


1. ” Only 2 of each unclean animal were taken on the ark, while 7 of the clean were taken aboard. If Noah had been allowed to eat pork, we wouldn't have any pigs today.”

Again with the “logic”? How much longer would 7 animas last then 2? Maybe a few weeks, then what? This is a silly point.

2. “Lev. 17 indicates that Gentiles could not eat unclean animals, even though other Kosher laws did not apply to them. For example, Deut. 14:21 says that Israelites could not eat animals that died of themselves, but strangers could. Yet strangers could not eat unclean animals according to Lev. 17.”
As I have already proven, this was for gentiles living among Israel. For you to prove that this applied to other gentiles you need to show some scripture that states gentiles as a people were given the kosher laws or that some gentiles living in gentile communities were required to keep the kosher laws.

3. Is. 66 says those eating pork when Christ comes will be lost.
And again you error because you don’t read texts in their context.
Please notice the next few verses after your text, 17:
“19 "I will set a sign among them, and I will send some of those who survive to the nations-to Tarshish, to the Libyans and Lydians (famous as archers), to Tubal and Greece, and to the distant islands that have not heard of my fame or seen my glory. They will proclaim my glory among the nations.”
Now compare to this text:
“And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” Matt 24:14

Isaiah 66 had God killing sinners and then sending witnesses to the nations “that have not heard” of God. So the fact would be that the end had occurred before the gospel was preached to “the whole world”.
So my friend, you have two choices; believe that Isaiah 66 is true and accurate and that makes Jesus a liar, or believe that Isaiah 66 was a conditional prophecy based on Israel’s compliance. I choose to believe that since Israel was not faithful, this prophecy will never come true.
4. 2 Cor. 6:17, 18, says that if we want God to be our Father, we must not touch the unclean thing.
This text is referring to marriage, see verse 14. Man, you really have no idea how to read scripture.

5. Abstaining from unclean animals is part of holy living, and holy living is a NT requirement.

Wrong, it is about healthy living and healthy living is a witness to others. God makes us holy, we cannot make ourselves holy. So there is value in following the kosher laws from a health/witness perspective, but it certainly is not universal.

quote:

You cannot produce one text from the NT that explicitly says that Gentiles can eat pork, or break the fourth commandment. The texts you quote neither explicitly mention unclean animals nor the seventh-day Sabbath.

Eating ANYTHING sold in the meat market at Corinth (1 Cor 10:25) is proof enough. Corinth was the town where they had the temple to Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love. So Paul states that they can eat “anything” sold in the Corinth meat market. So guess what sport, all sort of vile things were sold in that market. It was a Pagan, not Kosher market and town. Also, I believe Col 2:16-17 takes care of the Sabbath issue.


quote:

Rom. 14 doesn't say what sort of days it's talking about. Neither does Galatians. Col. 2:14 excludes the 10 Commandments from consideration, since they weren't handwriting, can't be blotted out, and can't be nailed. Col. 2:16 is talking about sabbath days, plural, a fact your version ignores, sabbaths that were shadows, which ties them in with the 7 annual sabbaths of Lev. 23, not the 4th Commandment.

And again you error because you don’t know your bible. The torah contained all sort of feast days a sacred days, none of them were a weekly or day event other than the 7th day Sabbath. All the feasts were either in the spring or fall and the only other sacred day was on the monthly new moon. So there was not weekly or day sacred other than the 7th day Sabbath. So there was no special days, because none occurred daily or weekly accept one.

Next, how do you think the Israel referred back to the tables of stone if they forgot or needed to review them? Do you think they just opened up the Ark and took them out and read from them. Then, put them back? What do you think would happen if they tried that? They would be toast! Remember my friend, Israel could not touch or even look at the Ark. That means they could also not touch or look at the tables of stone in the Ark.
So how do you think they were able to follow the laws on stone? THEY WROTE THEM DOWN ON SOMETHING ELSE! Hello! The torah, or book of the law also contained the laws that were originally on stone. For example it contained “not to make any Idols” #2 (2 Kings 23:24).
So the fact is my friend that the law was written down that Paul was referring to and it could indeed be blotted out, if that were the case.


quote:

And as you admit, there is a universal law, and thus the Gentiles of the OT were sinning when they transgressed that universal law. The difference is what you and I think was part of that universal law.

Finally, something we agree upon. I call it the moral law because it was the foundation for all other laws.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/16/03 03:25 PM

quote:
And yet there is no text in scripture that states Gentile Christians are Jews or are Israel.
I gave you at least 3 texts. That one in Rom. 2 calls uncircumcised Gentiles Jews.

Let's agree to disagree on that one.
quote:
Gee, maybe Paul is talking about the pagan tribe of Benjamin?
I never said that.

Paul did not "rejoice in Christ Jesus" before his conversion, and so he was not of the circumcision prior to that, in the sense of Php. 3:3. What he says in the following verses pertains to circumcision of the flesh. He is endeavoring to show how worthless mere fleshly circumcision is.
quote:
So according to God, Abraham?s seed are counted through Isaac.
Galatians 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Is this talking about Jews only, or Gentiles too? If the latter, then Gentiles are children of Isaac too.
quote:
The word for man as used in hundreds of other passages did not specifically mean Adam. Since Adam was the first man that is the word that is used to indicate a man. However, that doesn?t mean Jesus meant Adam specifically.
Why then did Jesus in the Greek say "THE man," just like in Genesis? Who was He talking about, if not Adam AND mankind?
quote:
If you think that's what Jesus meant, then you have demolished your own point as neither you nor I are Adam.
You missed what I said. I said that in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, "the man" refers to Adam AND mankind. In chapter 6 "the man" begins to mean all Adam's descendents. Everytime you read "men" or "man" in that chapter, it's always singular and always has the definite article in the Hebrew.
quote:
Anyway, to prove that the Sabbath was given to mankind and just not Israel you have to show one text were anyone after God in Eden kept the Sabbath before Moses.
We never say that one has to find where someone kept "Thou shalt not kill" before Sinai. Why do that about the 4th commandment?

Genesis is a history book, not a law book. It covers in few words almost 2500 years of history. In contrast, most of Exodus covers but a year or so.

We have hints in Genesis about commands against sodomy and immodesty and adultery, but none of these precepts are explicitly stated.
quote:
The moral laws like murder, etc. are not the 10 C?s.
Last I knew, "Thou shalt not kill" was in the 10.

Look at Rev. 11:19. There we have the heavenly ark of the covenant or testament. Is that the ark of the Old or the New? Since it's in the heavenly temple, not the earthly temple, it must be of the New.

Yet the ark was but a box to hold the tables of the covenant. Thus the heavenly ark must hold the heavenly tables of the New Covenant.

Those tables would then contain the 10 moral precepts all who come under the blood of the New are expected to adhere to.
quote:
So this is the law that gentiles broke, not the torah law or 10 C?s that was never given to them.
Can you show me where it says that the Gentiles were given any moral law? Prior to Moses? In Genesis? Can you enumerate what those precepts were? Are you saying that nothing else was given that isn't explicitly mentioned?

The moral law you refer to, how many of the 10 does it contain?
quote:
How much longer would 7 animas last then 2? Maybe a few weeks, then what?
  1. 7 cows
  2. 7 sheep
  3. 7 goats
  4. 7 bison
  5. 7 elk
  6. 7 antelope
  7. 7 yaks
  8. 7 takkens
  9. 7 deer
  10. 7 moose
  11. 7 wildebeest
  12. 7 gazelles
  13. 7 chickens
Maybe there were others too. I'm not so familiar with foreign ones. And other than chickens, I won't attempt to name clean birds.

Eat one pig, and they're no more. But a 1000 pound carcass of a cow, divided up among 6 people, would give them 166 pounds of meat apiece. If they ate two pounds a day, 1 cow would last them 83 days.
quote:
As I have already proven, this was for gentiles living among Israel.
As I have already proven, the passage is primarily talking about not eating blood. You already agree that not eating blood is a universal precept, and thus you already believe that that verse in Lev. 17 is not just for Gentiles living in Israel.
quote:
So the fact would be that the end had occurred before the gospel was preached to "the whole world".
You probably have noticed that in other passages, prophecies are not always in consecutive, chronological order. This tripped up the Jews, who thought Christ had to come as king at His first advent.

Thus the point you raise regarding Is. 66 doesn't necessitate it being conditional. The gathering could easily be before the end.
quote:
This text is referring to marriage, see verse 14.
Paul is applying an OT text to a NT situation, marriage in particular. Thus he gives validity to an OT passage, which can be applied to other situations as well.

In what way, if you are correct, does one not touch the unclean thing in marriage?
quote:
Wrong, it is about healthy living and healthy living is a witness to others.
I already showed you how when these precepts were given, God connected it to holiness. He didn't explicitly connect it to health.
quote:
Eating ANYTHING sold in the meat market at Corinth (1 Cor 10:25) is proof enough.
Yet the context says that this is talking about meat sacrificed to idols.
quote:
So there was not weekly or day sacred other than the 7th day Sabbath. So there was no special days, because none occurred daily or weekly accept one.
You really ought to read the passages I refer to before replying.

Lev. 23 mentions 7 annual sabbaths. Yom Kippur is explicitly called a sabbath in that chapter, though it could fall on a Monday one year, and a Wednesday another year.

These 7 sabbaths were shadows of the gospel, but the weekly Sabbath was made before sin, before there was a need for a shadow to point to the gospel.

Paul excludes the 10 from consideration, since the 10 cannot be nailed, as I said before. Paul emphatically said that the 10 are not made void in Rom. 3:31. He does not contradict himself in Col. 2:14.

____________
Personally, I think your insults are out of place in this forum. See if you can be a little more like the One you claim to follow.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/16/03 07:07 PM

Bob, I don’t mean to be insulting, It is just frustrating when you discount or ignore the literal word of scripture in favor of some scenario that is not literal stated in scripture anyway. You have quoted for me probably 9 texts that you feel Paul is referring to gentiles as Jews, and yet you ignore Paul’s intended stated audience in these very texts.

So if you can’t even acknowledge that Paul is talking to Jews when he states “my brothers or countrymen”, “Israel”, “of the circumcision” (ie. Gal 2:12; Tit 1:10, etc), etc., then how can we have a meaningful dialog?

It’s like we are having a conversation; I keep bringing up facts of scripture and you keep on talking as if the facts don’t matter.

Maybe the scope here is getting too large. Perhaps you can just address one point or issue at a time. This would keep the posts shorter and perhaps enable you to address the issues in a more factual manner.

So maybe you could start be focusing on one point and we can go from there.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/17/03 04:16 PM

Okay, let's narrow it down.

1. I think we both agree that there is no verse that says explicitly that "Gentile" "Christians" may or may not eat "pork." Either the word Gentile or Christian/NT believer or pork/swine/pig is missing. Thus we must derive our understanding of this subject from whether the missing word(s) can be supplied by the context or other factors.

2.
quote:
Rom. 2:28, 29 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
The question here is whether Paul use of "he" refers to anyone, or just circumcised Jews.

I agree that this part of his book is directed to Jews:
quote:
Rom. 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest:...

Rom. 2:17 Behold, thou art called a Jew,...

But that in itself isn't enough to determine whether "he" is just ethnic Jews or not.

quote:
Rom. 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
This verse unequivocally says that the uncircumcised converted Gentile is accounted by God as being circumcised. Thus, the "he" two verses later would include converted Gentiles, would it not?

The next verse after the disputed passage is:
quote:
Rom. 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
This verse would not make sense if Paul was not saying that believing Gentiles are Jews in God's sight, and unbelieving Jews are as Gentiles in God's sight.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/17/03 04:18 PM

Pardon my math on how long it would take to eat a cow. There were 8 people, not 6. Also, the actual pounds of usable meat should be considered, not the weight of the carcass. And one should determine what a realistic amount of meat for them to eat per day would be.

Today's cows get slaughtered when they're between 900 and 1400 pounds.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/17/03 07:18 PM

quote:

. I think we both agree that there is no verse that says explicitly that "Gentile" "Christians" may or may not eat "pork." Either the word Gentile or Christian/NT believer or pork/swine/pig is missing. Thus we must derive our understanding of this subject from whether the missing word(s) can be supplied by the context or other factors.

I think you are approaching this with certain assumptions that are not valid. If God let the nations or gentiles “go their own way” (Acts 14:16), he would not have needed to state they could or could not eat pork. He just would not have said anything.

Now we know God stated for “man” to not eat blood; that can be applied to all man because it was given to Noah after the flood. However, no other instruction was given. So we must assume that all man was eating “everything that lives and moves” (Gen 9:3) until Moses.

Now the kosher laws that God gave Moses to give to the Jews were not given to the nations or gentiles as a people. And again, keeping in mind that God let gentiles do their own thing, we must conclude that the kosher laws (other than eating blood) did not apply to gentiles unless specificaly give to them.

So what we really need to find is a text applying the kosher laws (other than eating blood) to either the nations or gentiles as a people.


quote:

quote:

Rom. 2:28, 29 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

The question here is whether Paul use of "he" refers to anyone, or just circumcised Jews.

Actually, contextually, Paul already gave us the answer because this passage starts out with the statement “If you call yourself a Jew” in verse 17. So there is really no question that Paul was talking to or about literal circumcised Jews.


quote:


quote:

Rom. 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

This verse unequivocally says that the uncircumcised converted Gentile is accounted by God as being circumcised. Thus, the "he" two verses later would include converted Gentiles, would it not?

Good point Bob, this is what I have been trying to say. Circumcision in the spiritual sense that Paul was referring to applied to being a “descendant of Abraham”. Now the point is that being a spiritual descendant of Abraham does not make you a Jew or Israel. And as Paul states, being a physical descendant of Abraham is incorrect because Israel is under Isaac, not Abraham.

Scripture indicates that Israel is counted as being from the line of Isaac, not Abraham. So if literal Israel (line of Isaac) is not automatically a seed of Abraham, then how can gentiles ever be a seed of Isaac?

In other words:

Literal Israel = Seed of Isaac

Faithful Israel = Seed of Abraham
Faithful Gentiles = Seed of Abraham

So being the seed of Abraham is not being Israel. Now I know that the Pharisees and other Jewish people in the NT felt they were the seed of Abraham by birth, but according to the inspired bible writers, that Idea is false.

So by saying we are “spiritual Israel” you are really saying you are part of the “seed” of Isaac. To be accurate with scripture you should say you are “spiritual Abraham”.


quote:

This verse would not make sense if Paul was not saying that believing Gentiles are Jews in God's sight, and unbelieving Jews are as Gentiles in God's sight.

Not quite sure what you mean here, but I think the issue is that the saved group is NOT Israel. Yes, Jews are the same as Gentiles. So that really means there are no Jews or no gentiles in God’s eyes. If this is the case, there is no way the gentiles can be Jews because Jews don’t exist in God’s eyes.

So like I stated above, the saved group is through Abraham’s seed, and that seed is not Israel according to Paul. So by saying you are Israel you are placing yourself under Isaac, when you should be placing yourself under Abraham.

Since the line of Israel was officially under Isaac, Abraham was officially not a Jew. So being under Abraham does not make you a Jew. Get it?



quote:

Pardon my math on how long it would take to eat a cow. There were 8 people, not 6. Also, the actual pounds of usable meat should be considered, not the weight of the carcass. And one should determine what a realistic amount of meat for them to eat per day would be.

Today's cows get slaughtered when they're between 900 and 1400 pounds.

Have you seen how big a pig can get? I have seen 500+ lb pigs before. That would indeed provide food for a long time. Not that I would eat it, but it would be possible.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/18/03 02:46 PM

quote:
If God let the nations or gentiles "go their own way" (Acts 14:16), ...
You assume too much. The text doesn't say that there were no laws at all for Gentiles. "Go their own way" could be taken more than one way.
quote:
However, no other instruction was given.
The Bible doesn't say that.

I think we can agree that from Gen. 3 there were laws against indecent exposure, and from Gen. 4 there were laws regarding blood sacrifices. The story of Sodom suggests that there were laws against sodomy, and from Gen. 39:9 we gather that there were laws against adultery.

Notice particularly that Joseph said he would be sinning against God, not Potiphar. You can't have sin where there is no law.

quote:
Now the kosher laws that God gave Moses to give to the Jews were not given to the nations or gentiles as a people.
Do you have a text that says that?

John 7:22 "Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man."

Thus a requirement in "Moses" may actually have been around before Moses. So said Jesus.

Regarding Romans 2, then you agree that Paul was calling converted Gentiles "Jews"?

Regarding the seed of Isaac, doesn't Galatians 4:28 and Rom. 9:8 indicate the same?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/19/03 06:00 AM

quote:

You assume too much. The text doesn't say that there were no laws at all for Gentiles. "Go their own way" could be taken more than one way.

Ok, how else could it be taken?


quote:

I think we can agree that from Gen. 3 there were laws against indecent exposure, and from Gen. 4 there were laws regarding blood sacrifices. The story of Sodom suggests that there were laws against sodomy, and from Gen. 39:9 we gather that there were laws against adultery.

Notice particularly that Joseph said he would be sinning against God, not Potiphar. You can't have sin where there is no law.

I agree with all you have stated. But just as you stated I assumed too much, you also assume to much if you add to anything that is or is not stated in scripture.

If you will look at history, God dealt with only individuals before Israel. They were the first group God singled out as His own. So up to Israel God gave individuals pieces of the law He would later give in entirety to Israel. So depending on their issue or circumstance, God would give them directions. However, there is just no evidence that God gave any one person or group of people all His laws before Israel.


quote:

Do you have a text that says that?

Not specifically related to the kosher laws, but related to all of the laws given to Israel:

“19 He has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel. 20 He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws.” Ps 147

So taking this text at face value we could conclude that David was referring to all God’s laws, because he did not clarify what “his laws” included and the terms “his laws and decrees” would seem to cover everything God gave to Israel through Moses.


quote:

John 7:22 "Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man."

Thus a requirement in "Moses" may actually have been around before Moses. So said Jesus.

You have a poor translation, most every other translation states Abraham and not “the fathers”. Also, you know good an well that this text was referring to circumcision only and that is was a covenant between God and Abraham and not something that occurred before Abraham.


quote:

Regarding Romans 2, then you agree that Paul was calling converted Gentiles "Jews"?

No, haven’t you been paying attention?

You seem to be looking at this from a Jewish Pharisee perspective. The fact is that Jews are not saved. If a gentile becomes a Jew when saved, then he/she would no longer be saved.

Again:

Jews = seed of Isaac = not saved

Abraham’s seed = saved Jews and saved gentiles, not Israel

THE SEED OF ABRAHAM IS NOT ISRAEL!

The seed of Abraham is “many nations”.

So you should have stated that I agree that Paul is calling saved gentiles seed of Abraham, because the seed of Abraham is technically (in God’s eyes) not Israel. The seed of Israel is technically only from Isaac ("It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."[ 9:7 Gen. 21:12]).

So Abraham seed = many nations, which from a high level means gentiles and Jews
Isaac seed = Israel only

quote:

Regarding Romans 2, then you agree that Paul was calling converted Gentiles "Jews"?

Yes, Paul, speaking to Jews, states for them to become children of Abraham and not Isaac.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/19/03 02:24 AM

"Go their way" could just mean that God didn't at that point call the Gentiles back into obedience to His commands.

Regarding John 7:22, it isn't a question of translation. The KJV is correct here, before "Abraham" does not appear in the Greek text. "Fathers" in the plural is what the Greek says. Most other translations would therefore not say "Abraham."

quote:
No, haven't you been paying attention?
I was, and that was why I asked. What you said in the last post when I raised the issue was, "Good point Bob, this is what I have been trying to say." I'll repeat my point as you quoted it in your post.
quote:
Rom. 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

This verse unequivocally says that the uncircumcised converted Gentile is accounted by God as being circumcised. Thus, the "he" two verses later would include converted Gentiles, would it not?

You see? After you commended me for saying that, I really wasn't sure what your position was.

Also, you seem to repeatedly ignore my comments on Galatians where I showed that Galatians says that converted Jews and Gentiles are children of the promise like Isaac. According to Galatians, your distinction between the seed of Abraham and the seed of Isaac cannot be correct.
Posted By: marcel

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/20/03 03:48 PM

Sometimes we need to go back to Jewish writings when attempting to determine whether certain laws exisited prior to Sinai. According to Judaism laws on unclean food were not applicable to Noah. As I recall there were seven laws and they did not include the Kashrut laws. According to early Jewish writers, the patriarchs were allowed to eat anything they pleased.

The unclean food laws were instituted for Israel at Sinai and are not applicable to NT Christians any more than any of the other "Laws of Moses" are! The SDA movement taught abstinence form "unclean foods" based on the views of the temperance movement during the pioneer days. It was only later that the denomination sought to find Biblical justification for adherence to these laws. Attempting to do this is however nothing other than being cultic!

Marcel de Groot for SDA reform.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/21/03 04:11 PM

Why don't we look at some of those writings and see? Are there particular ones you're thinking of?

It appears that perhaps 5 of the 7 Noahide laws are found in the 10 Commandments, but only one of those is explicitly mentioned in Genesis as being discussed with Noah. Would not this suggest that Noah knew about all of the 10?

The reason I raise this point is that the same argument you've mentioned is used to say that Noah didn't keep the Sabbath. The Sabbath isn't part of the today's 7, and apparently proselytes of the gate were at some point forbidden to keep the Sabbath (http://www.moshiach.com/action/morality/seven_laws.php).

Regarding what Adventists taught at different points, I suggest you study the matter on your own using the Words of the Pioneers CD-ROM. I've found some statements that some make on the matter to be inaccurate.

How do you explain where Is. 66 says that folks eating swine when Christ returns won't be going anywhere?

What do you think about when Paul enshrines in the NT the OT admonition to not touch the unclean?

What are your thoughts on when Lev. 17 takes for granted that the reader already knows that Gentiles don't eat unclean animals?

What about the fact that there weren't enough of any particular unclean animal on the ark to have enough to eat?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/22/03 01:25 AM

quote:

Also, you seem to repeatedly ignore my comments on Galatians where I showed that Galatians says that converted Jews and Gentiles are children of the promise like Isaac. According to Galatians, your distinction between the seed of Abraham and the seed of Isaac cannot be correct.

Bob, if you will recall, Paul states that true Israel (line of Isaac) is not even considered as one of the “seed” of Abraham automatically. So if you read that text again you will see that Paul is talking about Gentiles being children of Abraham like faithful Jews (Isaac) being children of Abraham. Remember, It was Paul who made the distinction, or brought it up that Israel was the line of Isaac, not Abraham. So in this text he would not being going back and saying not Israel is automatically “Children of promise”.

So what I’m saying is that Paul is that if you read that text again you will see Paul does not say “converted Jews and Gentiles are children of the promise like Isaac”. He states “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.”. So he is here referring to Jews as just Isaac. So in other words; “Now we gentiles brothers in the faith, like Isaac was a child of Abraham, you to are a child of promise or Abraham.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/22/03 05:29 AM

quote:
Bob, if you will recall, Paul states that true Israel (line of Isaac) is not even considered as one of the "seed" of Abraham automatically.
I do not agree that Paul ever states this. I do not believe that Paul ever says that the literal line of Isaac is "true Israel." I believe that Paul teaches that "true Israel" is the spiritual seed of Abraham/Isaac/Jacob, the believers of every nation, kindred, tongue, and people of all time and ages.

The only passage you have produced to support your position can easily be understood to be teaching what I have just stated.

As Rom. 9:8 says, it is the "children of the promise" that are "counted for the seed." Paul makes no distinction there between seed of Abraham or seed of Isaac. He makes it plain that he is talking about "children of God," the seed of God.

He likewise makes no distinction between Gentile children of promise and Jewish children of promise. I do not see any reason why we should make such a distinction.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/22/03 03:24 PM

.........you will see that the unclean food doctrine does not have a NT basis. Is 66 is written in the context of the OT Israel and should be understood as such.

The fact is that this doctrine is heresy........

Marcel de Groot

=========

Marcel,

If you continue to break the forum rules by showing disrespect to the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, your posting privileges under your registered name will be removed and all access into the private forums will be removed. Discuss the doctrines, yes. Show disrespect, no! Any such future posts will be deleted upon discovery without any further comment - Daryl Fawcett, Administrator.

[ July 22, 2003, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: Daryl Fawcett ]
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/23/03 06:59 AM

quote:

I do not agree that Paul ever states this. I do not believe that Paul ever says that the literal line of Isaac is "true Israel." I believe that Paul teaches that "true Israel" is the spiritual seed of Abraham/Isaac/Jacob, the believers of every nation, kindred, tongue, and people of all time and ages.

Perhaps I stated it incorrectly. What I meant was that Paul states the “true Israel” are those from the line of Isaac that believe in Jesus, THAT makes them “true Israel”.

“3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. 6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.” Romans 9

Notice Paul here is talking about his own race, Israel. He views true Israel as those Jews in Jesus. He states that Jews are not Israel or Abraham’s seed by race. So Paul views “true Israel” as those from the line of Isaac that believe in Jesus. So where do you get gentiles into this?

Nowhere in scripture does it say that Gentiles become Israel or “true Israel”. What you error is is thinking that “True Israel” is all of the saved or God’s children, it is not. The kingdom of God includes both gentiles and Jews and all the group of the saved is NOT called Israel or true Israel it’s called

“In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.” Romans 9:8

So the saved group are Abraham’s seed or children of promise, not “true Israel” and not the line of Isaac.


quote:

He likewise makes no distinction between Gentile children of promise and Jewish children of promise. I do not see any reason why we should make such a distinction.

Really? No distinction?

“I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.” Rom 1:16

“but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.” Rom 2:10

If Paul makes no distinction, why does he always outline Jews separate form gentiles and say “first for the Jew”?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/22/03 07:10 PM

Marcel:
If you are convinced that you should eat anything, then go ahead, but be Christlike in your attitude and do not allow others to stumble because of your "new found freedom." Afterall, the Bible says let everyone be so persuaded in his / her heart.

And I don't know why you guys are leaving and protesting agains the church anyway. Didn't Paul say that if we disagree on these things, God would make it right? You know, it onw message that we all Adventist MUST learn, that at the end of the day, it's not meat, nor all the other things that we force about. It's gonna be "Love." Did we show Love. "By this shall all men know you are my disciples," Not by correct doctrines, not by eating or not eating, but by love. "If you haver love one another."

What did Paul say? "If I understand all mysteries ans all doctrines, but . . . . " I think you know that verse very well.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/22/03 08:16 PM

quote:

You know, it onw message that we all Adventist MUST learn, that at the end of the day, it's not meat, nor all the other things that we force about. It's gonna be "Love." Did we show Love. "By this shall all men know you are my disciples," Not by correct doctrines, not by eating or not eating, but by love. "If you haver love one another."

Kent, if I may, I believe that is exactly what Marcel was trying to point out. His underlying point is that all these things are not moral issues and that the true focus of any SDA should be to love his fellow man. However, as you can see by the responses here, many believe that salvation is about eating, drinking, dancing, etc.

So if you are trying to witness to others about the true gospel, and the freedom found therein, how would you go about it if your audience felt that salvation comes though following these types of OT guidelines?
Posted By: Daryl

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/22/03 11:49 PM

Lobo,

We are not talking about a requirement but a result in which Jesus said more than once that if you love Him, obey Him. We who [Heart] love [Heart] Him are desiring to obey Him. [Smile]

The abstaining of unclean meat is simply our love response to what most of us here believe is His revealed will.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/23/03 12:50 AM

That’s fine Daryl, but then how do you explain Paul’s statement that by loving my fellow man I “HAVE” fulfilled the law? You seem to be indicating that by following the law I fulfill love, but that is not what scripture states, that idea is actualy backwards or the opposite of what scripture states.

“Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.” Rom 13:8

“Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” Rom 13:10

So Paul is literally stating that if I love my fellow man I have (completed act) fulfilled the law without actually attempting to follow any of it.

LOVE IS THE FULFILLMENT OF THE LAW! The LAW is NOT the fulfillment of love.

Lastly, perhaps you should see what Law Jesus was referring to when he stated “If you love me keep my commands”.


“10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. 11I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” John 15
Posted By: Daryl

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/23/03 01:18 AM

Lobo,

Saying I love is one thing, however, what I do in response to what I say is the evidence of what I say.

Love as a word all by itself without any action or results behind it doesn't fulfill the law. It is the demonstration of love by what I do that fulfills the law.

That is why Jesus said what He said when He said, "If you love Me,.... In other words, "If you love Me, show me that you love Me."

Love is an action word.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/23/03 02:13 AM

Daryl, I totally agree that love is an action, but I think where we disagree is what action?

If I see someone in danger, I help them. If someone asks for help, I give it to them, etc…

This is what Jesus and Paul emphasized and demonstrated by their life.

So what Paul is saying is that by helping this person I have fulfilled the law.

So yes, love is a verb, but the action is not specific to the tables of stone.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/23/03 03:00 PM

Lobo,

I see where the difficulty lies:
quote:
Yours: Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children.

KJV: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

The problem is that you are attempting to arrive at doctrine from a paraphrase instead of a translation. Vs. 7 doesn't mention Israel/Jacob at all, by name or by pronoun.

What vs. 7 is saying is that not all the descendants of Abraham are really Abraham's children.

So not all the descendants of Abraham are really his children, and not all the descendants of Isaac are really his children, and not all the descendants of Jacob are really his children. It's only the children of promise that are counted as the seed, as children, and that includes Gentiles too.

You ask why Paul mentions the Jew first. Well, Christ and the disciples sought to reach the Jews first with the gospel. But remember that the very next verse, Rom. 2:11, says "For there is no respect of persons with God." All are counted as the seed if they are the children of promise.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/23/03 03:10 PM

Lobo,

quote:
So Paul is literally stating that if I love my fellow man I have (completed act) fulfilled the law without actually attempting to follow any of it.
That's not quite what Paul said. He was pointing out that those who truly love their neighbor as themselves will not murder, steal, or commit adultery.

Likewise, what Paul did not mention is also true: that those who love God with all their heart will not blaspheme or have other gods before Him. And when they learn that He asks them not to bow down to images, they'll do that commandment too. Out of love.

When Jesus spoke about the keeping of His commandments, He was referring to all His commandments, including the 10 He gave on Mt. Sinai. After all, it was Jesus who was on Mt. Sinai.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/23/03 07:07 PM

quote:

The problem is that you are attempting to arrive at doctrine from a paraphrase instead of a translation. Vs. 7 doesn't mention Israel/Jacob at all, by name or by pronoun.

Bob, the NIV is not a paraphrase, it’s a contextual translation. The KJV tried to do a word for word translation, while the NIV looked at the context to help with the determination of what the writers intent was. As in English, many of the Greek and Hebrew words have more than one meaning. So unless you know the context at times you may not know what the writers intent was. That is why the KJV works well for those that proof-text, because it translated the words without regard to context. That is Why the KJV in Hebrews states that it was Jesus leading Israel into the Promised Land and not Joshua.

I prefer a contextual translation as it just doesn’t use the most common meaning of a word, but uses the context to determine what the writer actual meant.


quote:

So not all the descendants of Abraham are really his children, and not all the descendants of Isaac are really his children, and not all the descendants of Jacob are really his children. It's only the children of promise that are counted as the seed, as children, and that includes Gentiles too.

You are misinterpreting these texts. Nowhere does Paul indicate that the seed of Isaac or Jacob are “children of promise”. The “Promise” (“you will be the father of many nations”) was made exclusively with Abraham. So the “children of promise” literally means a “seed of Abraham”. Nowhere does it say that the “seed of Isaac or Jacob” will relate to “many nations” or the “children of the promise”.


quote:

That's not quite what Paul said. He was pointing out that those who truly love their neighbor as themselves will not murder, steal, or commit adultery.

Likewise, what Paul did not mention is also true: that those who love God with all their heart will not blaspheme or have other gods before Him. And when they learn that He asks them not to bow down to images, they'll do that commandment too. Out of love.

I think you should look up and see what the Greek word translated “fulfilled” means. You will find that it is complete, accomplished, to bring about. Also, one can follow all the tables of stone and still not help others who are in distress, put others first, and not have slaves, etc..

The moral level of the Ten C’s is way below the level Jesus called us to. So stating that we show love to our fellow man by following them is not what Jesus required.
Posted By: marcel

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/24/03 01:42 PM

Daryl,

The SDA leadership, like anybody else, must earn respect. It is evident to me that the leadership does not generally respect the membership.

It is clear to me that this forum will not allow the truth re present SDA heresies.

You are therefore most welcome to remove my posting privileges as I will in any case not be posting on this forum again.

Regards

Marcel de Groot for SDA Reform

===========

Reference to a removed topic was edited out in this post. As far as respecting leadership goes, I shall begin a new topic regarding this. As far as doctrines goes, we are allowing discussion of them in this forum as separate topics for each doctrine which is limited to the study of these doctrines, etc.; not a blanket statement attack on the Seventh-day Adventist church and/or its leaders. If you can't respect our forum rules, then you are welcome to go elsewhere, or, if you will stay within our forum rules, continue to participate here with us. - Daryl Fawcett, Administrator.

[ July 24, 2003, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Daryl Fawcett ]
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/24/03 05:23 PM

The NIV gives many examples of how it is a paraphrase, not a translation. Its repeated ommissions from and additions to the Greek text are proof of that.

And those ommissions and additions have often more to do with the bias of the paraphraser rather than the context. For example, there is no contextual reason for ommiting "having" from heb. 10:1.

Check the original languages before making any conclusions based on the NIV.

quote:
Nowhere does Paul indicate that the seed of Isaac or Jacob are "children of promise".
He does in Rom. 9:7, 8. He specifically identifies the children of promise as being the seed called "in" Isaac.
quote:
The moral level of the Ten C?s is way below the level Jesus called us to.
Then why did Jesus give us the 10 Commandments? Why did He speak them from Sinai?
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/24/03 05:26 PM

Marcel,

I've never seen a case where the leadership didn't respect the membership. But there are some members out there who have done some things that necessitate their earning back the respect they used to receive.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/25/03 01:05 AM

quote:

He does in Rom. 9:7, 8. He specifically identifies the children of promise as being the seed called "in" Isaac.

Bob, you are in error, Paul is specifically talking about the “children of the flesh”. Gentiles were never called that and are not physically (flesh) from the line of Isaac.

“But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” (Note – this is the NKJV, do you like it better?)


quote:

Then why did Jesus give us the 10 Commandments? Why did He speak them from Sinai?

Please show me one text were God gave the Ten C’s to Gentiles as a people like Israel? If not, this was never given to gentiles.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/25/03 02:47 PM

Lobo, "you are in error, Paul is specifically" contrasting the children of the flesh with the children of promise:
quote:
Romans 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
The context of this verse does not narrow down the meaning of "children of promise" to only a small group of "children of the flesh." Such an idea goes contrary to Paul's argument.

You are wrong that "Gentiles were never called that." There are but three texts in the KJV that use both the words "children" and "promise," and all three mention or refer to Gentiles:
quote:
Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off [Gentiles], even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Romans 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Galatians 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. [The context is pretty plain.]

Not once do we have an explicit verse that contradicts these Scriptures, that says that only a child of the flesh is a child of promise.
quote:
Please show me one text were God gave the Ten C?s to Gentiles as a people like Israel? If not, this was never given to gentiles.
One question at a time.

You do agree, then, that Jesus is the One who gave the 10 on Sinai, and that thus when He said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments," He could easily have been referring to the 10 as well, since those are His commandments too? (I ask if you agree because in your replies I can detect no hint that you do not.)
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/26/03 02:15 AM

Bob,
First, I am not confused as what the conflict is as I agree that the children of the flesh are not the same as the children of promise. However, they are the same as the seed of Isaac.

In other words,

Seed of Isaac = children of the flesh only (Jews)
Seed of Abraham (Promise) = the seed of Isaac and gentiles collectively called the seed of Abraham of children of God.

Do you agree or not agree?


Next, Jesus gave all the 613 laws. So we could also say that he was referring to all the law when he stated "If ye love me, keep my commandments,”, not just the ten and not just His new law of Love. However, when you look at all the scripture in the NT related to Jesus “commands” they are never used synonymously with the torah or tables of stone. However, His command are used in direct relationship to His love command.

So it is possible that all the 613 laws were included in Jesus statement "If ye love me, keep my commandments," but it is not likely based on the context and all the other precedence. However, one thing is clear and that He did not mean just the tables of stone because neither he noir any other Jew made a distinction of the ten from the rest of the law. It was all the law and had equal weight.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/26/03 05:07 AM

I do not agree. Paul makes crystal clear in Rom. 9:7, 8 that the seed that is called in Isaac are the children of promise, not the children of the flesh.
quote:
In Isaac shall thy seed be called....

...the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

I do rejoice, though, that we agree on something: Jesus was the one that gave all the precepts to Israel.

If you look at Mat. 5:19, Jesus used the word "commandments" in explaining the word "law." He then went on to quote directly and to explain two of the 10 (#6 & #7), and referred to at least one of the other eight (#3).

Can you find any of the ceremonial precepts mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount? Or did Jesus here primarily refer to the 10 by the word "commandments"?

Another good example would be Mat. 15:3, 4, where He calls the fifth of the 10 a "commandment." And in this passage He elevates this commandment above all the Jewish traditions.

I think it significant that not once in Revelation is the word "commandments" used until after Rev. 11:19, where the ark is seen. Thus Revelation 12:17; 14:12; and 22:14 are primarily referring to the 10 within the ark when they use the word "commandments." And these 10 would be the original tablets of which Moses got but a copy.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/28/03 07:53 PM

“3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. 6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

Sorry Bob, Paul here is only talking to Jews. The focus of this passage is Israel, His own people.


quote:

Can you find any of the ceremonial precepts mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount? Or did Jesus here primarily refer to the 10 by the word "commandments"?

Why Yes, Matt 5 states Divorce, oaths, eye for eye, and love for enemies, none of which is on the tables of stone.


quote:

I think it significant that not once in Revelation is the word "commandments" used until after Rev. 11:19, where the ark is seen. Thus Revelation 12:17; 14:12; and 22:14 are primarily referring to the 10 within the ark when they use the word "commandments." And these 10 would be the original tablets of which Moses got but a copy.

That idea is contrary to “entole” with is not used by John EVER to indicate the OT law. John ALWAYS uses Nomos to indicate the law, never entole. So you may logically think it is directed at the tables of stone, but according to the writing style and word usage of the one who wrote, that idea is just not correct.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/29/03 04:01 PM

Are you making sense? You maintain that Gentile believers are of the seed of Abraham, and yet in this passage where the seed is mentioned, you maintain that it can't be referring to Gentile believers?

The fact remains that Paul declares plainly:
quote:
In Isaac shall thy seed be called....

...the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

I asked which ceremonial precepts you could find in the Sermon on the Mount. Please be more specific and cite chapter and verse where these CEREMONIAL precepts are found in the Law of Moses.

None of the 4 issues you mentioned were ceremonial. Divorce would fall under the 7th commandment, and oaths under the 3rd. Divorce alos and eye for an eye would be civil legislation affecting the civil government of Israel, and love for enemies is by no means ceremonial (Ex. 23:4, 5).
quote:
That idea is contrary to "entole" with is not used by John EVER to indicate the OT law. John ALWAYS uses Nomos to indicate the law, never entole. So you may logically think it is directed at the tables of stone, but according to the writing style and word usage of the one who wrote, that idea is just not correct.
Of course, my observation in Revelation demonstrates that you are wrong on this point.

Notice how you first said that this was so for the entire NT. I showed how you were incorrect by referring you to Matthew. Now you have narrowed your assertion down to just John's writings. But in order to prove your assertion, you would have to prove that each and every such usage by John cannot possibly include the 10, and this you cannot do.

Tell me, in Jn. 15:10, do the "Father's commandments" mentioned there also include the 10 or not? What was Jesus referring to there?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/30/03 12:42 AM

quote:

Are you making sense? You maintain that Gentile believers are of the seed of Abraham, and yet in this passage where the seed is mentioned, you maintain that it can't be referring to Gentile believers?

Contextually is doesn’t refer to gentiles. For example, if I say, “you naturalized Mexicans are now Americans”, does that make us who are not Mexicans not Americans? No! Does that make us who are Germans then Mexicans? No!


So the fact that Paul was addressing Jews and telling them that they are not automatically Abraham’s seed doesn’t not make gentiles also Abraham’s seed.



quote:

None of the 4 issues you mentioned were ceremonial. Divorce would fall under the 7th commandment, and oaths under the 3rd. Divorce alos and eye for an eye would be civil legislation affecting the civil government of Israel, and love for enemies is by no means ceremonial (Ex. 23:4, 5).

I’m sure you can fit anything under any command you want to. However, unless that is specifically stated in scripture, it doesn’t matter does it. It’s just your opinion.


quote:

Notice how you first said that this was so for the entire NT. I showed how you were incorrect by referring you to Matthew. Now you have narrowed your assertion down to just John's writings. But in order to prove your assertion, you would have to prove that each and every such usage by John cannot possibly include the 10, and this you cannot do.

Bob, I apologize if I seem confusing, I responded to so many people on similar issues I forget who I’m talking with.

To answer your question, I have always been focused on John’s perception because it was John who wrote it. You seem to want to ignore John’s understanding in favor of another’s because it supports your views. Well that is your right, but if you really wanted to understand what JOHN meant you would look at JOHN’s perception of entole, not anyone else’s.


quote:

Tell me, in Jn. 15:10, do the "Father's commandments" mentioned there also include the 10 or not? What was Jesus referring to there?

You need to read that again. Jesus states that HE keeps the fathers commands and WE keep HIS commands. He never states for us to keep the fathers commands. So since Jesus doesn’t say what the commands are that are between Him and the Father, we don’t know what they are only that they are not for us.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/31/03 07:03 AM

quote:
So the fact that Paul was addressing Jews and telling them that they are not automatically Abraham's seed doesn't not make gentiles also Abraham's seed.
True. But Paul didn't say that Gentile believers are not the children of promise in either Rom. 9:8 or Gal. 4:28. You assume that in Rom. 9, since Paul is making a point to Jews, he is only talking about Jewish children of promise, but the passage does not so say.
quote:
I'm sure you can fit anything under any command you want to. However, unless that is specifically stated in scripture, it doesn?t matter does it. It's just your opinion.
???? I asked you where the Sermon on the Mount mentioned any ceremonial precepts. You named things that weren't ceremonial. Your response to my pointing this out I do not understand.

As far as John's use of entole goes, do you have any passage where John makes it clear that entole does not include the 10?

Since John and Matthew were both disciples of Christ, I would think they should have similar views on what entole meant to Jesus.

Further, if you read 1 Jn., John parallels sin with breaking the commandments and transgressing the law. Thus the sin, breaking the commandments, and transgressing the law are equivalent expressions.

John's defintion of sin thus is similar to Paul's. Oaul said that the law gives a knowledge of sin, and to illustrate his point, he quoted the 10th of the 10 Commandments.

John thrice mentions the commandments after the ark is seen in Revelation.

The commandments in the ark defined sin in terms of the OT sanctuary service. Take away the law out of the ark, and there was no reason to bring any sacrifices anymore.

Thus, I do not see how you can exclude the 10 from the meaning of [i]entole/i].
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/31/03 07:04 AM

Do we really have to get mired in a discussion like this in order to determine whether God's end-time condemnation of pork eating in Is. 66 is still truth?
Posted By: Daryl

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/31/03 03:57 PM

I agree, Bob.

This topic comes under the Health Food Laws of the Bible. And health applies to everybody, not only to the Jews. Also, we are Spiritual Israel, are we not? How much more then should it apply to us as Christians, unless we are truly not born again Christians, but only nominal Christians. The key thing is whether or not we have individually accepted Christ. If we have truly accepted Him, then we will be like Him in all things, including what we choose to eat and not to eat.

As far as Is. 66 goes, that is a point that we need to come to an understanding of.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/31/03 08:28 PM

quote:

True. But Paul didn't say that Gentile believers are not the children of promise in either Rom. 9:8 or Gal. 4:28. You assume that in Rom. 9, since Paul is making a point to Jews, he is only talking about Jewish children of promise, but the passage does not so say.

Sorry, there is no assumption when Paul starts out the passage by saying: “the people of Israel” in verse 4. Frankly, it seems silly to me that you are even question this.


quote:

???? I asked you where the Sermon on the Mount mentioned any ceremonial precepts. You named things that weren't ceremonial. Your response to my pointing this out I do not understand.

I guess I don’t know what your definition of “ceremonial” is then. I thought you meant those laws not on the tables of stone.


quote:

As far as John's use of entole goes, do you have any passage where John makes it clear that entole does not include the 10?

Bob, here are all the times John used “entole”: Jhn 10:18, Jhn 11:57, Jhn 12:49, Jhn 12:50, Jhn 13:34, Jhn 14:15, Jhn 14:21, Jhn 15:10, Jhn 15:12, Jhn 15:12, 1Jo 2:4, 1Jo 2:7, 1Jo 2:8, 1Jo 3:22, 1Jo 3:23, 1Jo 3:24, 1Jo 4:21, 1Jo 5:2, 1Jo 5:3, 2Jo 1:4, 2Jo 1:5, 2Jo 1:6.

All these texts refer to Jesus commands while here on earth, or God commanding Jesus, but none refer to the OT law or the ten C’s. In fact, most of these texts refer to Jesus “Law of Love”.

So how do I know John didn’t mean or include the 10 c’s in his use of entole? Because John used “Nomos” when referring to the 10 C’s or OT law, i.e John 1:14.

From a NT standpoint, the disciples predominately distinguished between the OT Law and the commands of Jesus as two different things. Even though Jesus did give the OT law to Moses, the Jews did not accept that. In addition, Jesus changed the focus of many of the OT laws like divorces, oaths, eye for an eye, love for enemies, etc..

So Jesus “modification” to the OT law was considered commands or teaching (Entole) of Jesus and the OT law was the law (Nomos).


quote:

I agree, Bob.

This topic comes under the Health Food Laws of the Bible. And health applies to everybody, not only to the Jews. Also, we are Spiritual Israel, are we not? How much more then should it apply to us as Christians, unless we are truly not born again Christians, but only nominal Christians. The key thing is whether or not we have individually accepted Christ. If we have truly accepted Him, then we will be like Him in all things, including what we choose to eat and not to eat.

As far as Is. 66 goes, that is a point that we need to come to an understanding of.

Daryl, I agree that this topic with Bob is off the issue. I want to stay within the boundaries of the forum, but I also feel I need to address incorrect biblical concepts when they are presented. So if you and others can espouse any ideas freely and not expect or want to address any challenge to those ideas, then I should be given courtesy.

For example, here are the errors that I see in just your last short post:

1. The health laws given to Israel (other than not to eat blood) have not been given to everybody and there is not text in scripture that states that.

2. No where in scripture does it say non-Jews are “Israel” and the term “spiritual Israel” does not exist in scripture. Gentiles can be “Abraham’s seed”, but that is not the same as Israel as technically “Israel” is Isaac’s seed.

3. Applying a moral statement that indicates that one will not be saved or are a “nominal Christian” because they don’t have your beliefs is also something I must challenge as this idea too is not stated in scripture.

So either we can discuss these issues or we can’t. But we should all have the same rules that are applied equally.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 08/01/03 03:06 PM

quote:
Sorry, there is no assumption ...
Yes, you are making an assumption. Just because Paul says which Jews are not Jews does not mean that he is only talking about Jews when he says who are children of promise. You are assuming he never is talking about Gentiles anywhere in these passages, but you have no basis for such an assumption.

Is. 56 speaks of Gentiles and eunuchs who have not/cannot become literal Jews. These folk are called blessed when they take hold of God's covenant and keep the Sabbath.

Is. 56 must be talking about the New Covenant, not the Old, since these folk have not/cannot become literal Jews. Vs. 8 is an allusion to the gathering in of the Gentiles under the ministry of Paul and others.

Paul's discussions are an extension of such concepts. He well knew that Is. 56 taught that there was another covenant, and that Gentiles who come under that covenant are still expected to keep the universal precepts of keeping the Sabbath and abstaining from blood and unclean animals.


"Ceremonial" precepts would be precepts that involve some sort of ritual that points forward to Christ. Some times such laws fall into another category as well.

For example, if you became unclean, you had to wash your flesh in water and be unclean until the evening. This could be considered a health law, but it was also ceremonial. The washing would represent the same as baptism, and the evening would represent when the Sun of Righteousness set, when He died on the cross. At sunset the sky takes on a crimson hue, not quite the color of blood, but close.

Regarding your list of texts, you skipped 1 Jn. 2:3 and Rev. 12:17; 14:12; and 22:14.
quote:
...but none refer to the OT law or the ten C?s.
You cannot prove that. Go ahead and try if you think you can.

Moreover, since the texts in Revelation all follow the revealing of the ark in 11:19, that ties the word entole in with the 10 Commandments.

John used nomos to refer to anything in the OT, as in Jn. 10:34 where Ps. 82:6 is said to be part of the nomos.

"From a NT standpoint, the disciples" taught that the OT was "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tom. 3:16). We know Paul was talking about the OT there because the previous verse mentions that Timothy's Jewish mother had taught him as a child from the OT.

Problem is that not a few professed believers absolutely refuse to be corrected or reproved by the OT Scriptures.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 08/01/03 03:26 PM

quote:
1. The health laws given to Israel (other than not to eat blood) have not been given to everybody and there is not text in scripture that states that.
Is. 66 does say that those still eating pork when Jesus comes will be destroyed.

Paul, quoting Is. 52:11, says that Christians should stay away from the unclean thing.

Noah took 7 cows and 2 pigs on board the ark, indicating that he was allowed to eat the clean, not the unclean, when he disembarked. There are indeed animals that all descendants of his are not to eat, as Lev. 17 indicates.

The motivation given for this in OT times was holiness, which is still something we are supposed to have today.
quote:
2. No where in scripture does it say non-Jews are "Israel" and the term "spiritual Israel" does not exist in scripture. Gentiles can be "Abraham's seed", but that is not the same as Israel as technically "Israel" is Isaac's seed.
No, for Israel is technically Jacob's seed, not Isaac's. What about Esau?

Rom. 2 indicates that all those who are circumcised in their hearts are Jews. Rom. 9 indicates that all children of promise are counted as the seed.
quote:
3. Applying a moral statement that indicates that one will not be saved or are a "nominal Christian" because they don't have your beliefs is also something I must challenge as this idea too is not stated in scripture.
Not so yet, but if you are still eating pork when Christ comes, then by the sure Word of the Lord in Is. 66, you will get left behind. I wouldn't want that to happen.

You can discount that text if you want, but why not play it safe? Especially when there is no NT passage that explicitly says otherwise. No NT passage says that you can eat "swine's flesh" when Christ returns and still go to heaven.
Posted By: John H.

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 08/02/03 07:07 AM

It sincerely bothers me that this subject should even be open for debate.

It's like asking, "Is Jesus the Son of God?"

Some questions should be open, but some others were settled a *LONG* time ago.

The question about clean/unclean meats was settled a couple thousand years ago.

Peter said, "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean." Acts 10:14.

I think Peter had a pretty good idea about whether meats should be clean or unclean. This was a good many years after Calvary.

No need to reinvent the wheel.
Posted By: StanMcCluskey

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 08/03/03 03:24 AM

Perhaps these words by Paul are appropriate here:
quote:
Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him....Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind....He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. Romans 14:3,5,6.
I'm a lifelong vegetarian, but I do so for health reasons AND in prayerful compliance with this Bible principle:
quote:
Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 1 Corinthians 10:31.
Based on that principle, I believe it would be better to eat meat OF ANY KIND than to starve.
quote:
For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. Ecclesiastes 9:4.

Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life. Proverbs 4:23.

Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. Matthew 15:17-18.

Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 08/03/03 04:19 AM

It seems to me, Stan, that part of living by faith is abstaining from getting ourselves out of problems by doing what God has forbidden.

For example, Abraham was told he would have a son, though he was childless. He should have just waited for the Lord to take care of his problem, rather than take things into his own hands by marrying Hagar.

Thus I do not think that eating an unclean animal or eating a human carcasse in an emergency situation would give glory to God.

Regarding Matthew 15, Jesus was talking about "meats" or foods (Mk. 7:19), something pork is never called in the Bible. What I mean is that Jesus was not saying that nothing you eat can defile your body. He wasn't saying that you can eat all the hemlock you want, and it won't kill you or make you guilty of the sin of murdering yourself.

Or another way to maybe look at it is that it isn't the pork that defiles the heart, but the choice to eat the pork that defiles.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 08/07/03 01:12 AM

Stan, you are a wise man.

I totally agree with your position. Not eating meat or pork, etc. is a health issue related to being a witness for God. However, it is not a moral issue in that it is a requirement for salvation. As Paul states, our approach is to witness and anything that causes our neighbor to stumble would be wrong.

So in private I could eat pork, but not around Bob, because that would obviously cause him to stumble.



quote:

Regarding Matthew 15, Jesus was talking about "meats" or foods (Mk. 7:19), something pork is never called in the Bible.

Not true Bob, Acts 10:12-13 indicates that unclean animals could be food by telling Peter to eat.


quote:

Or another way to maybe look at it is that it isn't the pork that defiles the heart, but the choice to eat the pork that defiles.

That’s just great Bob, salvation by food. What will you come up with next?


“Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense.”

So look’s like all food is clean or pure, but the man who eats it even though he feels it’s wrong, it is wrong for that person. So I guess you shouldn’t eat pork Bob because you would be condemning yourself. However, please do apply your moral positions to others as it’s clearly not universal.

“1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.”
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 08/07/03 02:52 PM

Lobo,

Your eating pork around me would not cause me to stumble. It would just tell me that you either didn't know what the Bible said on the subject, or didn't believe, or didn't care.

quote:
Not true Bob, Acts 10:12-13 indicates that unclean animals could be food by telling Peter to eat.
Look again. Acts 10 does not call swine "meat" or "food." Nor was that vision even about food.

The sheet came down three times because there were three Gentiles about to knock at the door. It was all about people, not pigs.

Do note that Peter thought it wrong to eat anything, and thus years after the cross was still obeying the Word of the Lord found in Lev. 11 and Deut. 14.

quote:
That's just great Bob, salvation by food. What will you come up with next?
I said nothing about salvation by food. Rather, I said that disobeying God on any matter can put one outside the kingdom in the end, even disobeying about food. Just ask Adam and Eve and they'll tell you all about it.

(That's a figure of speech. You'll have to wait until the resurrection to really talk to them.)
quote:
So look?s like all food is clean or pure, ...
Rom. 14 is likely talking about eating things sacrificed to idols, though it doesn't say for sure what it's talking about. Still, we have no Scripture that explicitly says that pork is "food," or in old KJV English, "meat." Until we find such a text, we can't use your text in finding an answer to this question. In other words, a text that uses the word "food" cannot be made to refer to pork until we have a text that explicitly calls pork "food."

quote:
However, please do apply your moral positions to others as it's clearly not universal.
I shall apply these universal principles to everyone at every appropriate opportunity, for I want no one to be lost for eating swine and mice when Christ returns, as Is. 66 clearly says will happen.

But regarding the probable issue of Rom. 14, that of eating things sacrificed to idols, I shall not be so forthright.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 08/07/03 09:07 PM

quote:

Lobo,

Your eating pork around me would not cause me to stumble. It would just tell me that you either didn't know what the Bible said on the subject, or didn't believe, or didn't care.

Bob, this judgment our your part about food is prohibited by scripture:

“3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.” Romans 14


quote:

Look again. Acts 10 does not call swine "meat" or "food." Nor was that vision even about food.

You look again as it describes all sorts of four-footed animals, which a pig is one. So the point is not that it talks specifically about pigs, but that it states for Peter to eat all unclean four-footed animals, pigs included.

I know the point of the passage is not eating, but it just shows that Peter understood that these unclean animals could be eaten or were used as food.


quote:

I said nothing about salvation by food. Rather, I said that disobeying God on any matter can put one outside the kingdom in the end, even disobeying about food. Just ask Adam and Eve and they'll tell you all about it.

And yet you still have not be able to show were the kosher laws have been applied to gentiles other than not to eat blood. So just show me where gentiles, as a people like Israel, have been given or required to follow all the kosher laws like Israel and I will agree you are correct. If not, you are adding to scripture, which is a no-no!

So you are in violation of two laws of scripture so far.
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 08/09/03 05:15 AM

Let me be more plain.

Rom. 14 does not say "pork," and thus for you to try to put "pork" into that verse is a violation of the admonition to not add to or take away from Scripture.

According to 1 Cor., the issue Paul must have been dealing with in Rom. 14 was the eating of things sacrificed to idols.

quote:
I know the point of the passage is not eating, but it just shows that Peter understood that these unclean animals could be eaten or were used as food.
To the contrary, the passage shows the exact opposite of what you claim: Years after the cross, Peter understood that unclean animals could not be eaten. There is no indication whatsoever that he ever swerved from that position.

But please note, the voice from heaven only said that Peter was not to call the "cleansed" "common." The voice never said anything about the "unclean."

One scholar has pointed out that Jews added to Scripture in claiming that clean animals associating with unclean became defiled or common. In like manner they taught that Jews associating with Gentiles became defiled or common, though the Word says no such thing.

Thus, the vision taught that cows associating with pigs did not become common or unfit for food. Neither would Peter's associating with Cornelius make Peter defiled or common.

Or, we might say that God had cleansed Cornelius, and thus Peter had no right to look upon him as "common."

Now, has God cleansed the pig? Or is the swine just as filthy, dirty, and disgusting as he's always been? If God has not cleansed the pig, then you have no right to call him clean.

quote:
And yet you still have not be able to show were the kosher laws have been applied to gentiles other than not to eat blood.
I have shown you, remember?

I've shown you where Paul says not to touch the unclean thing, quoting an OT text that has nothing directly to do with marriage.

I've shown you where God told Noah to take aboard only two of the unclean, instead of seven, indicating that there weren't to be any extra for food after the Flood.

I've shown you where Gentiles in Lev. were not to eat unclean animals.

I've shown you where Is. 66 says those eating swine when Christ comes will be lost.

I've shown you that holiness was the reason for the laws against eating swine, and how holiness is still a requirement today.

I've shown you how the NT controversy regarding requirements for Gentile Christians was over circumcision, not over pork.

I've shown you how not one of the verses you've cited explicitly mentions "pork" as being all right to eat.
Posted By: Charlene Van Hook

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 08/09/03 11:58 PM

Counsels on Diet and Foods----PG- 392
694. The tissues of the swine swarm with parasites. Of the swine, God said, "It is unclean unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass." This command was given because swine's flesh is unfit for food. Swine are scavengers, and this is the only use they were intended to serve. Never, under any circumstances, was their flesh to be
eaten by human beings.

*******
The Signs of the Times---- 04-13-04---Peter's experience. By Mrs. E. G. White.

Immediately after the interview with Cornelius, the angel went to Peter, who, weary and hungry from journeying, was praying upon the housetop of his lodging-house in Joppa. While praying, he beheld a vision. He "saw heaven
opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners,and let down to the earth; wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that a call not thou, unclean. This was done thrice; and the vessel was received up again unto heaven."


Here we may perceive the working of God's plan to bring to pass events whereby His will may be done on earth as it is done in heaven. Peter had not yet preached the Gospel to the Gentiles. Many of them had been interested
listeners to the truths which He taught; but in the minds of the apostles the middle wall of partition, which the death of Christ was to break down, still existed, excluding the Gentiles from the blessings of the Gospel. The Greek Jews had received the labors of the apostles, and many of them had become
believers in Jesus; but the conversion of Cornelius was to be the first one of importance among the Gentiles.

By the vision of the sheet and its contents, let down from heaven, Peter was to be divested of his prejudices against the Gentiles. He was to be led to see that through Christ the heathen were made partakers of the blessings
and privileges of the Gospel, and were thus to be benefited equally with the Jews.

The vision given Peter was an illustration presenting the true position of the Gentiles, showing that, by the death of Christ, they were made fellow heirs with Israel. It conveyed to Peter both reproof and instruction. His labors had heretofore been confined to the Jews; and he had looked upon the Gentiles as unclean, excluded from the promises of God. He was now being led to comprehend the world-wide extent of God's plan.

Notice how close the connections made in the working out of God's plan. While Peter was thinking about the vision, wondering what it meant, the men sent from Cornelius stood before the gate of his lodging-house, and the Spirit said to him: "Behold, three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them."

To Peter this was a trying command; but he dared not act according to his own feelings. He went down, and received the messengers sent by
Cornelius. They told him of their singular errand, and, according to the direction he had just received from God, he at once promised to accompany them on the morrow. He courteously entertained them that night, and in the morning set out with them for Caesarea, accompanied by six of his brethren, who were to be witnesses of all he should say or do while visiting the
Gentiles; for he knew that he should be called to account for so direct an opposition to the Jewish faith and teachings........
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 08/10/03 02:57 PM

Yes, God hit Peter over the head with a 2x4, and got His point across. In what better way could He have done it?

Jesus said the Pharisees strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. He was the Master Teacher. He spoke in a way that folks could not soon forget His lessons.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 08/12/03 12:15 AM

“I've shown you where Paul says not to touch the unclean thing, quoting an OT text that has nothing directly to do with marriage.”


How can Paul’s statement here (2 Cor 6:17) not be connected to marriage, but his statement in 1 Cor 10:25 must be connected to food offered to idols? You are being inconsistent. Either the context dictates the meaning of the passage or not.

So if context does dictate the passage meaning then 2 Cor 6:17 is indeed referring directly to marriage (2 Cor 6:14). But if not, then 1 Cor 10:25 is not specifically referring to meat offered to idols.

Make up you mind, it can’t be both, which is it?


“I've shown you where God told Noah to take aboard only two of the unclean, instead of seven, indicating that there weren't to be any extra for food after the Flood.”

This is conjecture and fatly logic. First, based on what IS in scripture we must conclude that the higher number of clean animals was for sacrificial purposes as they had previously been used for this purpose.

Next, if the idea was to have no unclean animals, that failed miserably didn’t it.

The scriptural fact is that the only restriction on eating given after the flood was to not eat blood. The fact also is that the instruction was at that time to eat “Everything that lives and moves” (Gen 9:3). Sorry Bob, but there are no exceptions to the term “everything”. And the only qualification of “everything” that was given was animals that “live” and “move”. This would rule out the possibility of eating animals that had been dead for a while.

So that fact is that this remains the ONLY instruction given to ALL MAN in regards to eating.


“I've shown you where Gentiles in Lev. were not to eat unclean animals.”

Gentile converts to Judaism or those living inside the Jewish communities has no bearing on gentile people living outside the Jewish communities or gentiles as a people. If God had meant this to apply to all people, He would have called gentiles as a people just like he did Israel. Yet he did not. Only those gentiles in and around Israel were told anything. So the fact is that it was about the people of Israel and not about the individual gentiles living there.

The FACT is that gentiles as a people were not given any of the OT laws other that that of Noah ( Ps 147:19-20)



“I've shown you where Is. 66 says those eating swine when Christ comes will be lost.”


Isaiah 66 also says that gentiles will bring offerings by horseback to Jerusalem (66:19-21), and that dead bodies would be on the ground (66:24). So unless you also believe these things will be occurring on the new earth, then you are mistaken about the timeframe.



”I've shown you that holiness was the reason for the laws against eating swine, and how holiness is still a requirement today.”


This is contrary to scripture. The clean and unclean distinction was first given for animal sacrifices. As such, it was ceremonial in nature only.

Also, Jesus clearly states that nothing a man eats can defile him or make him unclean:

“What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'” Matt 15:11

So you are again mistaken.


“I've shown you how the NT controversy regarding requirements for Gentile Christians was over circumcision, not over pork.”

The controversy was over requiring anything beyond the four things decided upon in the Jerusalem council. Anything beyond these requirements was considered a “burden” (Acts 15:28). So the reality is that it was not just circumcision but any of these OT law items not included in the four. Paul also makes that clear when talking about the Judaisers:

“14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?” Gal 2

So yes, the eating laws were also in this group and considered a “burden”.


”I've shown you how not one of the verses you've cited explicitly mentions "pork" as being all right to eat.”


You are correct, because pork by itself was never the issue. The issue was all meat that had previously been considered unclean. Since pork was one of these meats it falls into this category.

So the factual NT direction on eating is: “Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience,” ( 1 Cor 10:25).

Paul saying to eat “anything” sold in a pagan meat market (Corinth – the town with a statute to the Greek Goddess of Love) was very clear and very telling.

You may want to enslave yourself to these OT ceremonial requirements, but that is exactly what the Jerusalem council was trying to avoid:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood”
Posted By: Bob Pickle

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 08/16/03 05:29 AM

quote:
How can Paul?s statement here (2 Cor 6:17) not be connected to marriage, but his statement in 1 Cor 10:25 must be connected to food offered to idols? You are being inconsistent.
No, for in 1 Cor. 10:25 we have Paul's own words, and in 2 Cor. 6:17 we have his quotation of another Bible writer's words that in and of themselves are not directly connected to marriage.

Paul takes that OT passage and applies the "separate" part to marriage. The part about not touching the unclean thing he does not explicitly apply to marriage. If you disagree, please tell us what unclean thing he was talking about.

As far as after the flood goes, the passage says that every remes that liveth could be eaten. You'll notice that the first chapters of Genesis speak of remes as if that category of creature did not include all animals.

You are correct that the prohibition against blood was not the only precept given at that time. They also were forbidden to eat animals that were already dead.
quote:
Next, if the idea was to have no unclean animals, that failed miserably didn?t it.
I don't understand this statement. Of course scavengers were needed after the Flood, but not for sacrifices or for eating.

So you really think Noah had 7 gazelles on board for sacrifices, not for eating? There doesn't seem to be any reference in the Bible to sacrificing game animals, except on one occasion: after the Flood. So I don't think we can assume that the extra clean were taken onboard only for sacrifices.
quote:
Gentile converts to Judaism or those living inside the Jewish communities has no bearing on gentile people living outside the Jewish communities or gentiles as a people.
Prove it. Thus far this has only been conjecture on your part.

The fact that Lev. 11 and Deut. 14 are only addressed to Israelites, and that the reference in Lev. 17 mentions what it does only in passing, suggests that it was already well understood that these precepts applied to Gentiles.
quote:
The FACT is that gentiles as a people were not given any of the OT laws other that that of Noah ( Ps 147:19-20)
Prove it if you can. You really don't know what all God told the Gentiles, and neither do I.

Obviously, they knew enough for the 3 wise men to come from afar. Ancient Chinese characters mirror biblical stories and prophecies. We only have a glimpse of the light the Gentiles had.

Some things got obscured over time, but some of the myths still have a grain of truth. It was a woman in one story that opened Pandora's box and brought evil upon the world. Another story has a woman eating something she shouldn't that brings the evil. Achilles dies by a wound to the ankle, like the prophecy that foretold that Satan would bruise Christ's heel.

quote:
So unless you also believe these things will be occurring on the new earth, then you are mistaken about the timeframe.
Or perhaps you are mistaken in your time frame. Some of the events described take place at the second coming, not in the new earth. The dead bodies lying around would take place then.

Bottom line is that this passage says that if you're still eating that filthy dirty swine when Christ returns, you won't be going anywhere.
quote:
This is contrary to scripture.
But I showed you how Lev. 11 and Deut. 14 give holiness as the reason for abstaining. Are you saying that Lev. 11 and Deut. 14 are against Scripture? I don't understand what you mean.

I already dealt with Matt 15:11, remember? Eating poison does defile our body temple. Eating too much of a good thing is called gluttony, and will keep us out of heaven, according to Paul. But it's the choice to eat it that defiles the soul, not the food itself.

Regarding Acts 15, remember how we already discussed that one too? Acts 15 isn't telling us that Gentiles can murder and steal and lie, even though the four necessary things didn't include those precepts. So not everything was mentioned in that chapter that gentiles are required to keep.

quote:
You are correct, because pork by itself was never the issue. The issue was all meat that had previously been considered unclean.
Well then, please cite some passage that explicitly mentions that we can eat unclean animals as defined by Lev. 11 and Deut. 14. If you can do that, then the case is closed.

quote:
Paul saying to eat "anything" sold in a pagan meat market ...
Can you prove that Paul was not talking to any Jews? Are you suggesting that the church in Corinth had no Jews in the congregation? Or are you suggesting that Jews now could eat swine, even though Peter had never done so years after the cross?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 08/26/03 01:39 AM

quote:

As far as after the flood goes, the passage says that every remes that liveth could be eaten. You'll notice that the first chapters of Genesis speak of remes as if that category of creature did not include all animals.

Remes = “creeping things, moving things, creeping organism” (Strongs)


“9 And he said to me, "Go in and see the wicked and detestable things they are doing here." 10 So I went in and looked, and I saw portrayed all over the walls all kinds of crawling things [remes] and detestable animals and all the idols of the house of Israel.” Eze 8


Sorry Bob, looks like “remes” was used for unclean things. So there is no basis to believe it did not include all animals as the term “all” indicates.


quote:

quote:

Gentile converts to Judaism or those living inside the Jewish communities has no bearing on gentile people living outside the Jewish communities or gentiles as a people.

Prove it. Thus far this has only been conjecture on your part.

“19 He has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel. 20 He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws.” Ps 147

Consider it proven!


quote:

quote:

The FACT is that gentiles as a people were not given any of the OT laws other that that of Noah ( Ps 147:19-20)

Prove it if you can. You really don't know what all God told the Gentiles, and neither do I.

“14But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: 15"Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them. 16In the past, he let all nations go their own way. 17Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy." Acts 14


Consider it proven!


quote:

quote:

So unless you also believe these things will be occurring on the new earth, then you are mistaken about the timeframe.

Or perhaps you are mistaken in your time frame. Some of the events described take place at the second coming, not in the new earth. The dead bodies lying around would take place then.

Contextually my understanding is accurate.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 08/30/03 10:58 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Charlene Van Hook:
[QB] Counsels on Diet and Foods----PG- 392
694. The tissues of the swine swarm with parasites. Of the swine, God said, "It is unclean unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass." This command was given because swine's flesh is unfit for food. Swine are scavengers, and this is the only use they were intended to serve. Never, under any circumstances, was their flesh to be
eaten by human beings.




Good quotes Charlene

The actual name of the organism is the trichina worm, which is a parasite. It likes to burrow into your joint linings,and muscle tissue; and cause slow destruction, leaving people to think they have rheumatism; when in fact, they have "hogmatism." [Smile]
Posted By: StanMcCluskey

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 09/02/03 01:39 AM

Topic of this thread: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?

The present standing of the SDA church on this subject was adopted during the latter part of the 19th century. There had been much discussion on whether-or-not the laws of Moses concerning clean and unclean meat should should apply today. Uriah Smith, among others, was strongly opposed to that.

It was finally agreed that we should not be bound by the Moaic law, but instead take our stand on the much broader principles of health, as stated in verses such as Romans 12:1 and 1 Corinthians 10:31.

This was readily accepted by all since by then it was generally agreed in recognized health circles that the eating of such things as pork and bottom-feeding fish was not healthful.

This demonstrates how God has dealt with His people on matters of health over the centuries. He did not help them find new and dramatic discoveries; for His primary goal has always been to reach the heart with the message of saving grace.

BUT NOTE THIS WITH CARE: God has ALWAYS pointed His people to THE BEST MEANS OF PRESERVING AND RESTORING HEALTH AVAILABLE AT THE TIME.

This was true in ancient Israel, and it was true with the instructions given through Ellen G. White. Out of the many choices available, God always pointed to the best; but He did NOT reveal any NEW scientific discoveries to His prophets.

Many are confused on this issue today, and point to the so-called "sin" of using modern medical procedures and drugs, instead of the 19th century "natural remedies" Ellen White pointed to as the very best means available at that time. Note her use of the then-new MIASMA (bad air)theory as the BEST of several 19th century THEORIES for the cause of disease - a theory which led to developing greater cleanliness, resulting in better health.
quote:
If a house is built where the water will settle around it, remaining for a time and slowly drying away, there is a poisonous MIASMA continually rising from the damp ground, which breeds sore throat, fevers, ague, or lung diseases. CTBH.107

So far as possible, all buildings intended for human habitation should be placed on high, well-drained ground. This will ensure a dry site and prevent the danger of disease from dampness and MIASMA. MH 274.

But EGW progressed in her use and recommendations as new scientific discoveries proved practical. By accepting miasma (bad air) as the cause of disease in the mid-19th century, she directed us toward cleanliness as a major need in maintaining health. And she pointed out the need to avoid "poisonous drugs" in an attempt to heal.

This led to establishing the Battle Creek Sanitarium as somewhat of a "Natural Remedies" facility.

But by the time Loma Linda was chosen as the location for a new medical school; she had accepted the "germ theory" for the cause of infectious diseases, received several x-ray treatments for a skin condition, had been given a smallpox vaccination, and was suggesting the school be set up so graduates would be fully qualified as ALLOPATHIC physicians, rather than naturopathic.

Concerning this she wrote,
quote:
A time will come when medical missionaries of other denominations will become jealous and envious of the influence exerted by Seventh-day Adventists who are working in these (medical) lines. They will feel that influence is being secured by our workers which they ought to have. Ellen White in ME 4/1/1910.
That is being fulfilled today in a most wonderful way.

Let's use the writings of EGW in a common sense way.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 09/03/03 12:34 AM

quote:

This demonstrates how God has dealt with His people on matters of health over the centuries. He did not help them find new and dramatic discoveries; for His primary goal has always been to reach the heart with the message of saving grace.

Stan, I totally agree. To abstain from any food on the basis of health is appropriate. However, you are making assumptions when you say that the clean and unclean foods distinction was for health. The fact is that this distinction was first given for ceremonial reasons, not health. In fact, the first time it was given was for Noah and animals for sacrifices not eating. However, it must have been in place even sooner because of the sacrifices Cain and Able made. It was not until Moses that the clean and unclean distinction was extended to animals related to eating.

So to say that the clean and unclean distinction was for health is to discount its original meaning.

Also, even when it was extended to food the distinction was clearly still ceremonial, for example:

“If anyone touches something unclean-whether human uncleanness or an unclean animal or any unclean, detestable thing-and then eats any of the meat of the fellowship offering belonging to the LORD , that person must be cut off from his people.” Lev 7:21

Clearly touching someone who is considered unclean, like a women during her period (Lev 12:5), clearly is not a health issue. And so the unclean distinction is ceremonial in nature as Jesus clearly points out:

“14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' " 17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?” Mark 7

I find it very interesting that Jesus called his disciples “dull” who could not get this concept:)
Posted By: StanMcCluskey

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 09/03/03 04:56 AM

Lobo,

I choose not to discuss OT restrictions on this thread. My emphasis above was to show how SDAs developed our health policies based on eternal PRINCIPLES, rather than on the Mosaic law. But I do believe God provided people in OT times with the very best instructions available for living healthful lives and avoiding the spread of communicable disease.

Read again what I wrote about develoment of SDA health policies based on Bible principles:
quote:
It was finally agreed that we should not be bound by the Moaic law, but instead take our stand on the much broader PRINCIPLES of health, as stated in verses such as Romans 12:1 and 1 Corinthians 10:31.
On that basis, we try to avoid many things not included in the Mosaic law, and include many health practices not listed there.

Christ lived a PRINCIPLE-based life. I pray we will ask the leading of the Holy Spirit in doing the same; for PRINCIPLES are eternal.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 09/03/03 07:41 PM

Stan, what “eternal principles” are you referring to and how are they supported scripturally?
Posted By: Greg Goodchild

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 09/04/03 02:22 AM

Lobo:
Do you eat port and why? If you were among the children of Israel in the wilderness would you have asked for quail?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 09/04/03 05:54 PM

Greg, I’m not sure what “port” is, but if you mean “pork” I would say no. If you review my posts you will see that I have no objections to people limiting their diets for health reasons. My objection is when people make that a moral issue that applies to all. That is what I object to and what I believe scripture objects to as well.

So for my own health reasons I rarely eat anything that you would consider “unclean” in the OT. In fact, I don’t even eat beef. But I don’t believe it’s a moral issue and don’t judge others who do eat these things.

Greg, if I was in the wilderness I would have asked for manna. I believe nothing could compare to the health benefits of a food that comes directly from God.
Posted By: Greg Goodchild

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 09/06/03 08:47 AM

Was it Jesus that gave the pork laws? Why did He give them in the wilderness? Was it a moral issue in the OT?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 09/08/03 08:08 PM

Greg, if you use what is in scripture as your guide and don’t add anything to it, then the first kosher laws given were to man after the flood. In Genesis 9 God (Jesus) told Noah that he and his family could eat anything that moves, but they could not eat the blood of the animal. Not eating blood was also repeated to Moses and Israel and again to gentiles in Acts 15.

So given that this instruction was repeated three times we must conclude that it was very important and universal for all mankind.

The clean and unclean distinction was originally given to Noah and before for sacrificial reasons. Then it was given to Israel for sacrificial reasons and eating reasons. Then no other instructions to anyone gentile or not in the NT. So unlike eating blood, the reasons for the clean/unclean distinction seem to be confined to Israel and reflect ceremonial reasons and not health reasons.

So while any law given by God is a moral issue, the fact that the law was not continued in the NT and was originally given for ceremonial reasons, would indicate that the law was also removed with all the other ceremonial Jewish laws at the cross.
Posted By: Daryl

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 09/08/03 10:27 PM

Then why the distinction between the clean and the unclean entering Noah's ark?

quote:

Genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 09/09/03 01:35 AM

For sacrificial reasons. God only allowed clean animals to be sacrificed. God was very specific about the sacrificial system and didn’t even allow fruit to be sacrificed, remember Cain and Able?

So the distinction was given to Noah so he could make an appropriate sacrifice. However, the story of Cain and Able tells us that the distinction was around long before Noah’s time.
Posted By: Daryl

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 09/09/03 01:55 AM

I assume you, Lobo, are basing what you said on the following reference:

quote:

Genesis 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

But do you think that for a sacrifice was the only reason?

The following verses seems to say that what you, Lobo, say may be true:

quote:

Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

Verse 4 seems to be the only prohibition.

I guess I will need to examine this further.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 09/10/03 06:12 AM

Yes Daryl, what you have quoted is what I am referring to. That text in Gen 9 seems to say two things: that Noah, and by extension mankind, was allowed to eat “everything that lives and moves”, and that mankind was also prohibited from eating animals that were already dead (i.e. not moving) and from blood.

So while you are reviewing this it would be good to think about why the prohibition on blood was repeated three times in the bible (Noah, Moses, Jerusalem council) and the clean/unclean distinction for eating was only mentioned with Moses?

Also, since there is no mention of eating related to clean/unclean until Moses, but there was sacrifices, and given Gen 9:3-4, what evidence is there that the clean/unclean law applied to food until Moses? I can’t find any, maybe you can?

Don’t get me wrong, I personally don’t eat unclean food as a matter of health. However, from a witness standpoint I will not refuse if eating in someone else’s home, etc.. But again, I do this for health reasons and don’t apply it to others as a universal moral issue.

Anyway, research this and tell me what you think.

Lastly, Daryl, I’m very pleased to see your openness to research this and willingness to accept what scripture seems to be teaching. You are a credit to the SDA church and Christians in general.
Posted By: Will

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 09/10/03 12:50 AM

Hi Lobo,
You made an interesting point in the following:
quote:

However, from a witness standpoint I will not refuse if eating in someone else’s home, etc.. But again, I do this for health reasons and don’t apply it to others as a universal moral issue.

I have read this in the Bible, and am actually confused.
I don't eat meat period after I was poisoned after I ate a cheapo beef burger from famous burger place. Now with that setting lets say I go to a friends house and they are cooking up steaks, and even went through the troubles of making an incredible seafood platter..shrimp and all.. How does one handle this? Do you eat the food at risk of getting really sick or not? Let me know what you think about this.

God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 09/10/03 02:01 AM

Will, excellent question.

First, it is not often that one gets acutely ill after eating clean or unclean meat, or just meat in general. This only occurs when the meat is not cooked properly. However, from a health standpoint, it’s what occurs over a longer period of time or is chronic. So eating that occasionally at someone else’s house will not harm you (unless you are alergic).

Now, Paul talks about this kind of thing specifically:

“23"Everything is permissible"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is constructive. 24Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. 25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."27If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake -- 29the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? 30If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?” 1 Cor 10


Paul’s point I believe is that witness is not about food or drink or the “do’s and don’ts” of your faith. It’s about Jesus saving grace, period. Eating is something that would come up as a Christian matures in his faith. So what Paul is saying is that don’t confuse the gospel with food issues that are not germane to ones salvation. So we do whatever supports the witness and the other person’s conscience.

Make sense?
Posted By: Azenilto

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 07/24/06 01:49 AM

Dear friends

Some time ago I posted an "assessment" of the arguments presented in defense of the "eat-it-all" philosophy....

******* Reference to a topic and link to a forum other than MSDAOL removed - Daryl *******

After a time I improved upon it with a few changes and I want to submit the study again. So, whoever copied it, please, consider this new version as the best and erase the previous one.

Thanks

Azenilto G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
Bessemer, Ala., USA

An Assessment of the Arguments Presented By the Adherents of “Total Freedom” From the Bible’s Dietary Laws:

* Allegation: Christ in Mark 7:1-23 says that whatever enter the mouth won’t contaminate man, which shows that He is freeing His followers of following the dietary rules of the Bible:

Difficulties in that interpretation:

A – The context clearly indicates that the discussion was not regarding the contents of the dietary laws in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, rather the contrast between what God has stipulated and what the “tradition of the elders” established (Mat. 15:2). He Himself confirmed it in vs. 20.

B – If Jesus were “purifying” supposed unclean foods in that meal, His act would have been good for nothing, because that was a Jewish meal, where no unclean meat would be found.

C – If Jesus were abolishing the dietary laws for good, He would be abolishing the law of food restrictions AHEAD OF TIME, for these dietary rules were not abolished on the cross? Besides being ahead of time, the supposed prefigurative sense would be absent, for only at Christ's atonement the types meet the antitype, the shadow is substituted by the Reality!

D – Christ would be teaching something contrary to the divine law “still” in force, thus He Himself had to be considered “the least in the kingdom of heaven” on the light of His own words in Matthew 5:19.


*Allegation: The Jerusalem Council, of Acts 15, shows that the gentile Christians were set free from all the limitations of the “Jewish law”, especially in regard to keeping the Sabbath and following the dietary laws.

Difficulties in that interpretation:

A – To attempt using the expression “law of Moses” (vs. 5) only to some items that don’t seem convenient to the Bible student is dishonest (food laws and the Sabbath). This expression is much more comprehensive and includes the ceremonial precepts, as well as the moral ones, such as “ye shall not kill”, “ye shall not steal”, “honor thy father and thy mother”, “ye shall not say the name of the Lord thy God in vain”. . . This discriminatory use of the expression is totally suspicious.

B – What was determined during the Council is expressed in the four items of things the gentile Christians should ABSTAIN from (Acts 15:20, 29). These were no list of things they should, then, put into practice, as if it were a sort of “Tetralogue”, replacing the Decalogue, as some could think.

C – Of the four rules set, THREE deal with . . . food restrictions! Thus, instead of the Jerusalem Council confirming “total freedom” regarding the dietary laws, it instituted some rules reiterating ancient restrictions, by the way, things of the law that had been supposedly abolished, as the prohibition to ingest blood (Lev. 17:10-14). How would they repeat norms of an abolished code?!

D – Among the reiterations of ancient norms there is a recommendation against “sexual immorality”, which was something very well known as a divine law, expressed in the seventh commandment, “ye shall not commit adultery”. However, the apostles deemed it necessary to reiterate such a principle, for reasons that are not explained, and the law of which this rule is quoted had not been abolished.


* Allegation: The episode of Peter’s vision of the sheet, narrated in Act 10, when a sheet appears to him coming from heaven with all sorts of unclean animals, accompanied by the order, “kill them and eat” is a proof of a divine “total freedom” on the dietary laws:

Difficulties in that interpretation:

A – Peter’s resistance to the order “kill and eat” shows that he had not learned with either Jesus or his apostolic companions that there had been a “total freedom” regarding the dietary laws.

B – Peter did not understand the vision at all, for he kept wondering what was its meaning (vs. 17). That the meaning was entirely symbolic can be realized through the simple fact that it would be impossible for the Apostle to kill and eat something he saw in a vision. It would be the same as to try eating an ice cream seen on the TV’s screen.

C – When he finally understood the vision’s meaning, he didn’t interpret it as having to do with freedom to eat everything, rather that the gentiles, which the Jews had no permission to even “get close to”, should be contacted with the gospel message (see vs. 28).

D – In the following chapter, 11, he says that he could not resist the vision (vs. 17), but that resistance was not related to license to eat unclean meats, but to contact the gentiles. In his speech before the Jerusalem Council he mentioned his experience indirectly, and he speaks of “purification”, but not of unclean meats, rather of the hearts of the converted gentiles (see Acts 15:7-9).

That he overcame such resistance is made clear in Galatians 2:11, where it is said that he ate with the gentiles, even though receiving a rebuke by Paul for attempting to disguise these contacts of his, without justification.


* Allegation: The laws of dietary restriction were ceremonial, symbolizing the separation between Jews and Gentiles and ended with the atoning death of Christ:

Difficulties in that interpretation:

A – The adherents of the “total freedom” of the dietary laws theory cannot define the reasons why God established them, to start with. If they aimed at protecting the people’s health, why such a preoccupation would disappear overnight with the death of Christ, since the hygiene of both men and animals would remain the same of centuries, not only in the land of Judah, as throughout the world where the Gospel would be proclaimed?

B – There is no way to justify that overnight meats such as that of rats, ravens, snakes and lizards began to be consumed when the Temple’s veil was rent from top to bottom, and the eat-it-all advocates can’t explain how the death of Christ altered the composition of these unclean meats, and why such food so harmful to health became apt for human consumption when Christ uttered His “It’s finished” and expired.

C – There is not the least evidence that a diet of all kinds of foods became the common practice of Christ’s followers in the early years of Christianity, be it in the land of Judah or throughout the world.

D – Although those who allege that those laws were prefigurations of the separation between Jews and gentiles, the fact is that God wouldn’t maintain in His law such a negative aspect of human sentiments (racial prejudice, xenophobia), for He is “no respecter of people”. Besides, that would represent to shift the focus from Christ and His perfect sacrifice to men’s deficiencies.


* Allegation: In Romans 14, Paul deals with the “weak” in conflict with the “strong” ones in the faith, regarding certain foods, that being a debate surrounding the permission to utilize meats that were unclean before, which is also the case in 1 Tim. 4:1-3:

Difficulties in that interpretation:

A – There is not the least evidence that the debates there surpassed the question of food sacrificed to idols, since Paul dissented from the decision of the Jerusalem Council, which forbade the consumption of such food. He said that “the idol is nothing in itself”, allowing their consumption, but at the same time recommended respect for those who were scrupulously delicate, for not shocking them with their license to use these food articles, which, by the way, are not limited to meat (Gr. broma, any food).

B – Paul’s emphasis regarding our body being “temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 6:15) doesn’t favor the notion that the believer can feed himself with pig, rat, ravens, snakes and lizards, since the same Paul said: “Whatever you eat or drink, or do any other thing, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31).

C – The text of the parallel discussion in 1 Timothy 4 refers to “abstinence of foods that God created for being received with thankfulness” (1 Tim. 4:3) and its context refers to those who prohibited marriages, thus in a reference to a specific group of people. Specialists have identified these as the Gnostics, an ascetic sect. Thus, he was not setting a general rule, and also we have to face the fact that the “all that God created is good” (vs. 4) should include snakes, lizard, cockroaches, spiders. . .

D - The “all that God created”, even in normal dietary terms, would exclude those food items of the “dietary restrictions” of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:20). Thus, the “all” clearly has its limitations and cannot be interpreted in an absolute way. Also it is extremely improbable that the Apostle is giving a “blank check” for the consumption of cockroaches, ravens, snakes and lizard as being created by God for human consumption.


* Allegation: The eschatological text of Isaiah 66:17 deals with the very last happenings of this planet’s history, but is related to the nation of Israel, not to the entire population of the Earth, since there are names of nations related to Israel’s experience and history:

Difficulties in that interpretation:

A – Chapters 65 and 66 in its entirety show the picture of God appealing to Israel to be faithful to Him and to abandon condemned and abominable practices, in the face of the promise of extermination of the enemies who deviated them from the truth, and the new heavens and New Earth that are anticipated.

B – The immediate context of the text speaks of “fire and sword” with which the Lord will enter in “judgment WITH ALL FLESH”, and that He come to “join all nations and languages” who will “contemplate My glory”, in a very clear indication that it is the same end referred to in the book of Revelation. And these “all” who eat pig and rat and practice idolatry are included among those condemned to destruction, both in chapter 65 and 66 (see Isa. 65: 3 e 4 e 66:16-18).

C – There are description of nations contemporary of the prophet (Tharsis, Pul, Lude, Tubal and Javan), but these are representative of the “all nations” mentioned, as it occurs in the book of Revelation, where the Patmos seer also speaks of Babylon, Egypt, Gog and Magog, representing ALL the people who are enemies of God’s children and who will face their final punishment.

D – At the end of the chapter there is clear reference to the “new heavens” and “New Earth”, when God’s people would be keeping themselves faithful to the divine law, including the Sabbath observance. In the New Testament we also read about the destruction of those who destroy the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:17 and 6:19) and in Revelation John refers to the “unclean fowls”, in an eschatological context (see Rev.18:2). Thus, by the end of the I Century AD John still kept the conception of unclean animals, a proof that such attribution to certain animals had ceased.

========

Link to a different topic and forum outside of MSDAOL removed. - Daryl
Posted By: Azenilto

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 05/06/07 03:28 AM


Dear friends

To the assesment of the arguments by opponents of our position on the dietary laws I added an introduction with 3 basic questions that need to be answered first of all, before oneself engaging in any discussion on this question of the dietary laws.

Below I reproduce this introductory questions:

Any discussion regarding the Bible’s dietary rules should take into account three basic questions that need to be well defined. These three questions really set the foundation of the discussion on these divine laws, and they are:

1 – Why did God create these laws of dietary limitations, to begin with? Did He simply decide arbitrarily that certain meats were bad, without any clear reasons, and that was it?

2 – In what aspects were the dietary rules abolished on the cross, since they were not ceremonial? In what did they point forward to Christ's atoning sacrifice?

Note: Somebody suggested they would symbolize the separation between Jews and gentiles. But if that is true, would God include in His law a feature of something He, Who is not a respecter of persons (Rom. 2:11), condemns?

3 – How the shed blood of Christ would have been efficacious to purify the meat of pigs, rats, ravens, serpents and lizards? Had it operated some change in the structural composition in a way of turning them adequate to human consumption?


Posted By: djconklin

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 05/10/07 03:06 AM

 Quote:
Thus, by the end of the I Century AD John still kept the conception of unclean animals, a proof that such attribution to certain animals had ceased.


"ceased"? Did you mean "not ceased"?
Posted By: Azenilto

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 08/14/07 04:51 AM

 Originally Posted By: djconklin
 Quote:
Thus, by the end of the I Century AD John still kept the conception of unclean animals, a proof that such attribution to certain animals had ceased.


"ceased"? Did you mean "not ceased"?


Yes, that is right. The idea is "not ceased".

Well, since we have a long discussion regarding these subjects in our response to the Ratzlaff challenge, I will add also some other materials regarding the subject. See, initially, our basic philosophy that explains our attachment to these principles:


The Divine Manual For the Operation of the Human Machine

Last spring a bought a bicycle, and the manual of how to assemble and operate it in safety was almost as thick of that of an automobile. That is because the maker wants the user to have his equipment in the most efficient and durable application.

God, man’s Creator, wouldn’t act differently from any maker of human equipment, leaving the “machine” He created without being accompanied by its due “manual”. Thus, He established laws so that man put into operation the “machine” of his body for the best performance possible. The health laws of the Bible regulate the best for human feeding, with its hygienic features as clear preventive measures to preserve the good health of His creatures.

Actually, the advocates of the “eat-it-all” freedom mentality regarding these rules admit that the reason why God gave these detailed laws on foods was exactly to grant man defense mechanisms in the face of the underdeveloped conditions, at a time when there were no hospitals, clinics, laboratories, medicines and the modern means of treatment. That is true, but with that they can’t justify why these laws had to end overnight (when Christ died), since the conditions that could be detrimental to men kept on justifying such divine care, both in the land of Judah and in the other lands where the gospel would be proclaimed.

The Bible dietary rules practically define what should constitute food for man. Otherwise, he would ignore what would be best for him and consume every type of animal, whose ecological role is of another character, which involves land, air and water beings.

Some time ago I read in the Readers' Digest about someone asking to a dweller in the seashore region why they didn’t hunt the fowls that flew over the beaches to eat. The experienced man explained that a brick put to cook in an oven would end up being smoother than a seagull and other birds typical of the coastal areas.

Ignoring such dietary rules has been the cause of many plagues and diseases that have affected human beings, such the AIDS, ebola fever and afflictions such as the bubonic plague of the Middle Ages have been attributed to the consumption and manipulation by men of animals prohibited by God.

The Sabbath commandment has its health aspects also. If God hadn’t established a day for man to interrupt his activities, his tendency would be to work more and more, without stop, causing himself great physical and mental harm. God wisely associated a day for his rest with a special time for worship, thus setting necessary limits for man and a time for his spiritual refreshment. Jesus demonstrated an interest for the best health of His disciples caring for their physical rest, when He urged them once: “Come with Me by yourself to a quiet place and get some rest” – Mark 6:31 (NIV).

Even the tithe question has its beneficial logic. God doesn’t need man’s money, but He created norms for the maintenance of the ministry so that there was participation of His children. Otherwise man’s tendency would be to gather selfishly more and more to himself, not thinking about the responsibility for God’s Work that man has the assignment of concluding on this planet—the mission of preaching the gospel to every people, thus promoting Christ’s message until the end of all things (Matt. 28:19, 20 and 24:14).

The December 2005 issue of the National Geographic Magazine brought a special news story confirming what had been found in previous researches—the greater longevity of the Seventh-day Adventists and the health advantages of this religious group in comparison with Americans in general. Jesus declared: “By their fruits ye shall know” if a tree is good or bad. The fruitage of the Adventist’s (and Jewish) care for the biblical dietary laws could only result in benefit for those who follow them.

And if these rules are good for the Seventh-day Adventists, why wouldn’t they be equally good for other Christians and the general population as well?


Posted By: Azenilto

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 10/23/08 09:33 PM

Have you folks seen this remarkable video?

See what famous Pr. Joel Osteen (who pastors one megachurch in Houston, TX--Lakewood Church), has to say about unclean meats.

www.mydadsrestaurant.com/josteencleanfoodbig.wmv
Posted By: crater

Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork? - 10/24/08 12:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Azenilto
Have you folks seen this remarkable video?

See what famous Pr. Joel Osteen (who pastors one megachurch in Houston, TX--Lakewood Church), has to say about unclean meats.

www.mydadsrestaurant.com/josteencleanfoodbig.wmv
That's quite a crowd he was speaking to. Nicely done thumbsup

Have to wonder how many had a pork roast or chops planned for their Sunday dinner? wink
© 2024 Maritime 2nd Advent Christian Believers OnLine Forums Consisting Mainly of Both Members & Friends of the SDA (Seventh-day Adventist) Church