Jesus' commandments - opposed to His Fathers Commandments? - Really?

[Soyeong]

That is human reasoning, but it is NOT written until Genesis 9.

That is the category of animals that Genesis 9 refers to as Noah being able to eat.

Again, your reasoning is your own is your assumption that the unclean animals were actually clean, and not clearly what was written. I find it interesting you don't care what God means.

There is much evidence throughout Genesis of many of God's Laws being in place before they were given at Sinai. For example, in Genesis 6:8, it says that Noah found grace in the eyes of God, and in Psalms 119:29, David asked God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His Law, so in other words, it is saying that Noah was trained by grace to obey God's Law. In Genesis 6:9, it says that Noah was a righteous man, and again, this is no accident, but rather God had given Him instructions for how to do what is righteous, which he obeyed by faith. Genesis 7:2, Noah was told what to do with clean and unclean animals without being told how to distinguish them, so it is reasonable that he had been given prior instructions, which is consistent with Genesis 8:20, where Noah knew that he should only use clean animals as offerings, so it is not unreasonable to think that he also been instructed not to eat unclean animals. As God said in Leviticus 11:44-45, refraining from eating unclean animals is a way to act according to God's holiness, and God's holiness is eternal, so the way to act according to it is likewise eternal, but if at one point it was not in accordance to with God's holiness to refrain from eating unclean animals, then God's holiness changed as is not eternal.

It is not clear to me why you think that I said unclean animals were actually clean or that I don't care what God means.

 

[BobRyan]

That is the category of animals that Genesis 9 refers to as Noah being able to eat.

There is much evidence throughout Genesis of many of God's Laws being in place before they were given at Sinai. For example, in Genesis 6:8, it says that Noah found grace in the eyes of God, and in Psalms 119:29, David asked God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His Law, so in other words, it is saying that Noah was trained by grace to obey God's Law. In Genesis 6:9, it says that Noah was a righteous man, and again, this is no accident, but rather God had given Him instructions for how to do what is righteous, which he obeyed by faith. Genesis 7:2, Noah was told what to do with clean and unclean animals without being told how to distinguish them, so it is reasonable that he had been given prior instructions, which is consistent with Genesis 8:20, where Noah knew that he should only use clean animals as offerings, so it is not unreasonable to think that he also been instructed not to eat unclean animals. As God said in Leviticus 11:44-45, refraining from eating unclean animals is a way to act according to God's holiness, and God's holiness is eternal, so the way to act according to it is likewise eternal, but if at one point it was not in accordance to with God's holiness to refrain from eating unclean animals, then God's holiness changed as is not eternal.

It is not clear to me why you think that I said unclean animals were actually clean or that I don't care what God means.

God did not command Noah to eat rats cats dogs bats as some have supposed and as you appear to also agree that he did not do such a thing.

Think about this - how many of the pigs that "came in by two's" could the 8 people getting off the boat - actually EAT - before the rest of mankind had "no more pigs to eat"?? Recall that they were going to need both a male and a female to have "more pigs".

So then "lots of mass extinction" going on for the first few months after the ark landed - according to all the people that are ignoring that fact that even after the flood Noah observed differences between clean and unclean animals.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[1stcenturylady]

God did not command Noah to eat rats cats dogs bats as some have supposed and as you appear to also agree that he did not do such a thing.

Think about this - how many of the pigs that "came in by two's" could the 8 people getting off the boat - actually EAT - before the rest of mankind had "no more pigs to eat"?? Recall that they were going to need both a male and a female to have "more pigs".

So then "lots of mass extinction" going on for the first few months after the ark landed - according to all the people that are ignoring that fact that even after the flood Noah observed differences between clean and unclean animals.

in Christ,

Bob

Do you know how long they were on the ark? Do you think the animals stopped having sex? What else was there to do? Do you not believe God when He allowed EVERYTHING THAT MOVES to be food for them? What don't you understand about the word, 'everything'?

 

[BobRyan]

Do you know how long they were on the ark? Do you think the animals stopped having sex? What else was there to do?

If the animals were creating more mouths to feed - then the boat project did not last 6 months.

God provided the added animals among the clean animals so they could serve as food after that year on the ark. But the unclean animals did not enjoy such numbers. They would go extinct if the Bible-wrenching idea of ignoring that distinction of unclean - vs - clean in Genesis 7 and Lev 11 were actually true.

 

[1stcenturylady]

If the animals were creating more mouths to feed - then the boat project did not last 6 months.

God provided the added animals among the clean animals so they could serve as food after that year on the ark. But the unclean animals did not enjoy such numbers. They would go extinct if the Bible-wrenching idea of ignoring that distinction of unclean - vs - clean in Genesis 7 and Lev 11 were actually true.

So you really believe every doesn't mean every?

 

[bugkiller]

If the animals were creating more mouths to feed - then the boat project did not last 6 months.

God provided the added animals among the clean animals so they could serve as food after that year on the ark. But the unclean animals did not enjoy such numbers. They would go extinct if the Bible-wrenching idea of ignoring that distinction of unclean - vs - clean in Genesis 7 and Lev 11 were actually true.

God knew exactly what to tell Noah for a successful and essential mission.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

So you really believe every doesn't mean every?

You know he has a private dictionary.

bugkiller

 

[BobRyan]

So you really believe every doesn't mean every?

Same - means same. Just as they could not eat poison Ivy -- they could not eat unclean animals.

 

[bugkiller]

Same - means same. Just as they could not eat poison Ivy -- they could not eat unclean animals.

If it is prepared correctly one could eat it just like pokeweed.

bugkiller

 

[BobRyan]

If it is prepared correctly one could eat it just like pokeweed.

bugkiller

I find your logic "illusive"

=====================

"There are many wild plants growing in the U.S. that look like they would be edible, but are not at all safe-to-eat". 11 Toxic Wild Plants That Look Like Food


If poison ivy is eaten, the digestive tract and airways will be affected, in some cases causing death. Urushiol oil can remain viable on dead poison ivy plants and other surfaces for up to 5 years and will cause the same effect.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Same - means same. Just as they could not eat poison Ivy -- they could not eat unclean animals.

Interesting point, however, what animals are poisonous to eat? Besides, the plants were for the healing. Even getting poison ivy is good for the body in causing herpes to not be as bad a case if contracted at the same time. Just a little trivia.

Do you even know why some animals were deemed clean, and some were not for sacrifices? Or is it all about the letter of the law?

 

[BobRyan]

Interesting point, however, what animals are poisonous to eat?

A number are - but beyond that - the God that made food seems to know what animals are "for food" and which ones "are not". Lev 11.

What is more - eating rats has some big downsides - when it comes to disease plague and death. At least as we learn from history.

Besides, the plants were for the healing. Even getting poison ivy is good for the body

It causes a death in a number of cases as already noted for those thinking of eating poison ivy. Not sure if debating the "obvious" is helping when it comes to that detail.

Do you even know why some animals were deemed clean,

Clean vs unclean animals are detailed in Lev 11. And this designation of "unclean" even applies to clean animals are are diseased and/or die of that disease. Not some obscure arguments may then extend themselves to imagine that eating diseased animals is somehow "good" in a very strange odd scenario... but going back to my original statement - I prefer not to "debate against the obvious".

In the actual Bible God does not say "rebellion against my word is fine... until you finally delve into the depths of all my reasoning and understand in infinite depths my reasons for giving such laws".

 

[Bob S]

It is common knowledge that BR uses selective reasoning to satisfy his preconceived beliefs. The following verses according to BR cannot possibly be true:
God’s Covenant With Noah
Gen9:9 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 on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Now then when it comes to verses in Isaiah 65-66 which are controversial BR says one verse stands fast and we will be keeping the Sabbath in Heaven. When we approach him with the fact that those verses also contain thoughts like after the Sabbath service we will go out and walk among dead bodies with worms issuing from them and man will only live to be some over 100 years, BR goes into accusation mode, too bad.

 

[1stcenturylady]

A number are - but beyond that - the God that made food seems to know what animals are "for food" and which ones "are not". Lev 11.

What is more - eating rats has some big downsides - when it comes to disease plague and death. At least as we learn from history.



It causes a death in a number of cases as already noted for those thinking of eating poison ivy. Not sure if debating the "obvious" is helping when it comes to that detail.



Clean vs unclean animals are detailed in Lev 11. And this designation of "unclean" even applies to clean animals are are diseased and/or die of that disease. Not some obscure arguments may then extend themselves to imagine that eating diseased animals is somehow "good" in a very strange odd scenario... but going back to my original statement - I prefer not to "debate against the obvious".

In the actual Bible God does not say "rebellion against my word is fine... until you finally delve into the depths of all my reasoning and understand in infinite depths my reasons for giving such laws".

I'm sure you know that I know by heart what Leviticus 11 says. LOL But, that is only appearance. What were the spiritual reasons that made an animal unclean?

 

[1stcenturylady]

A number are - but beyond that - the God that made food seems to know what animals are "for food" and which ones "are not". Lev 11.

What is more - eating rats has some big downsides - when it comes to disease plague and death. At least as we learn from history.



It causes a death in a number of cases as already noted for those thinking of eating poison ivy. Not sure if debating the "obvious" is helping when it comes to that detail.



Clean vs unclean animals are detailed in Lev 11. And this designation of "unclean" even applies to clean animals are are diseased and/or die of that disease. Not some obscure arguments may then extend themselves to imagine that eating diseased animals is somehow "good" in a very strange odd scenario... but going back to my original statement - I prefer not to "debate against the obvious".

In the actual Bible God does not say "rebellion against my word is fine... until you finally delve into the depths of all my reasoning and understand in infinite depths my reasons for giving such laws".

When do you think animals ate each other? In the garden? After the fall? After the flood?

 

[BobRyan]

When do you think animals ate each other? In the garden? After the fall? After the flood?

Genesis 1 says the animals were not eating each other before the fall.

So then at some point after the fall - but their original food source would still have been available to them so not sure how soon after the fall they would have started that practice. There are parakeets in the south Pacific that turned to eating sheep when they were deprived of their natural food source (for example).

 

[BobRyan]

I'm sure you know that I know by heart what Leviticus 11 says. LOL But, that is only appearance. What were the spiritual reasons that made an animal unclean?

In Lev 11 the dead (dies of itself) and diseased even among the clean animals - was called "unclean" it came into the same category as the rat. And you are asking if there was a spiritual significance to rats or dead cows that died of a disease?

Some folks have suggested that Jesus died on the cross to make the rats clean or the pigs clean or to make it ok to eat diseased beef. I of course reject that "other gospel".

 

[BobRyan]

It is common knowledge that BR uses selective reasoning to satisfy his preconceived beliefs. The following verses according to BR cannot possibly be true:
God’s Covenant With Noah
Gen9:9 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 on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

In this example where you quote you to falsely accuse me - you exercise your free will and preference.

Where then is the compelling argument?

Now then when it comes to verses in Isaiah 65-66 which are controversial BR says one verse stands fast and we will be keeping the Sabbath in Heaven. When we approach him with the fact that those verses also contain thoughts like after the Sabbath service we will go out and walk among dead bodies with worms issuing from them and man will only live to be some over 100 years, BR goes into accusation mode, too bad.

There is no "after the Sabbath service" in a quote of anyone other than "you".

What is more -- in the Rev 20-21 sequence for the NEW Earth - the wicked are reduced to ashes in the lake of fire of Rev 20 before the NEW Earth of Rev 21 is in place. IT is this Earth where both occur.

 

[1stcenturylady]

In Lev 11 the dead (dies of itself) and diseased even among the clean animals - was called "unclean" it came into the same category as the rat. And you are asking if there was a spiritual significance to rats or dead cows that died of a disease?

Some folks have suggested that Jesus died on the cross to make the rats clean or the pigs clean or to make it ok to eat diseased beef. I of course reject that "other gospel".

If someone ate diseased beef, such as getting mad cow disease, was that a SIN?

Personally, I don't want to read into scripture that just because they were sacrificing clean meats to God, that they then were allowed to eat the meat as the priests did in Israel a couple thousand years later. You haven't said that, but another did. The command of God to eat meat, at all, was not until Genesis 9. As God is in control, that would have applied to the instincts of animals. Even what we know as carnivores would have eaten hay, or whatever Noah brought for them, but not food animals for them. Therefore, they would NOT have been diseased, even rats were healthy, and could produce many offspring on the ark for them to eat later. You are applying modern times to then.

The point is, to God, for OT Israel it would have been a SIN to eat any unclean foods, but it is no longer a SIN.

 

[Bob S]

In this example where you quote you to falsely accuse me - you exercise your free will and preference.

Where then is the compelling argument?



There is no "after the Sabbath service" in a quote of anyone other than "you".

What is more -- in the Rev 20-21 sequence for the NEW Earth - the wicked are reduced to ashes in the lake of fire of Rev 20 before the NEW Earth of Rev 21 is in place. IT is this Earth where both occur.

Okay, since you are never wrong, why would Isaiah relate the worshiping on Sabbath in the new earth along with going out and being among the dead bodies in the same thought? "And" is a conjunction that ties the two thought together. Is that too hard to understand? By the way it will be a fire that will not be quenched according to the source you use to try to prove keeping Sabbath will be a requirement in Heaven.

Israel's Sabbath observance was not about part of their doing to receive eternal salvation, it was about receiving a home in Canaan. Why would God have mankind do an act that only Israel was commanded to do to gain a home in Canaan?