|
Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,631
Members1,323
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?
#46631
07/15/03 09:44 PM
07/15/03 09:44 PM
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?
#46632
07/16/03 12:25 PM
07/16/03 12:25 PM
|
Active Member 2013
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,102
Halstad, MN
|
|
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?
- 7 cows
- 7 sheep
- 7 goats
- 7 bison
- 7 elk
- 7 antelope
- 7 yaks
- 7 takkens
- 7 deer
- 7 moose
- 7 wildebeest
- 7 gazelles
- 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.
|
|
|
Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?
#46633
07/16/03 04:07 PM
07/16/03 04:07 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.
|
|
|
Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?
#46634
07/17/03 01:16 PM
07/17/03 01:16 PM
|
Active Member 2013
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,102
Halstad, MN
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?
#46635
07/17/03 01:18 PM
07/17/03 01:18 PM
|
Active Member 2013
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,102
Halstad, MN
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?
#46636
07/17/03 04:18 PM
07/17/03 04:18 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.
|
|
|
Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?
#46637
07/18/03 11:46 AM
07/18/03 11:46 AM
|
Active Member 2013
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,102
Halstad, MN
|
|
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?
|
|
|
Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?
#46638
07/19/03 03:00 AM
07/19/03 03:00 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.
|
|
|
Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?
#46639
07/18/03 11:24 PM
07/18/03 11:24 PM
|
Active Member 2013
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,102
Halstad, MN
|
|
"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.
|
|
|
Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?
#46640
07/20/03 12:48 PM
07/20/03 12:48 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
