Status
Not open for further replies.

MournfulWatcher

In the beginning was the Word.
Feb 15, 2016
392
444
United States
✟110,673.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The "Should I Follow the Levitical Laws" questionnaire...

1. Are you an Israelite? If yes, please continue...
2. Are you an Israelite living in the time period of the Old Testament? If yes...Repent because you just lied.
 
Upvote 0

Dkh587

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 6, 2014
3,049
1,770
Southeast
✟552,407.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Nope. Paul was the first one to sit down at the table with the Gentiles and he called out Peter for not doing the same.

You are ascribing beliefs to Paul that he did not have, nor did he make that deliniation.
What's wrong with sitting at a table witH the called-out Gentiles that believe in the Messiah? Is that against the Law of God? If so, please provide some verses.

I've already shown countless times that Paul never endorsed eating unclean meat. Feel free to take a look back at the thread.
 
Upvote 0

Instrument150

Active Member
Aug 6, 2017
339
160
36
Pensacola
✟14,208.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Widowed
The "Should I Follow the Levitical Laws" questionnaire...

1. Are you an Israelite? If yes, please continue...
2. Are you an Israelite living in the time period of the Old Testament? If yes...Repent because you just lied.

This is funnier than just one little funny face on the bottom of a post
 
Upvote 0

Dkh587

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 6, 2014
3,049
1,770
Southeast
✟552,407.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What if the Law of Moses was obsolete, then what meats could man eat?
well, since you proposed a "what if"...

First, the law of God, aka the law of Moses, is not obselete, but...

we could eat whatever we wanted. We could also have sex with animals.

Fortunately, God revealed that eating unclean animals is abominable to him, so, we have no excuse for eating unclean animals.

Paul never said it was okay, the apostles never said it was okay, and the Messiah never said it was okay.
 
Upvote 0

Dkh587

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 6, 2014
3,049
1,770
Southeast
✟552,407.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I have a question. Why was Noah and his family aloud to eat all meat, even what was considered already unclean at the time.

~Every living thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.~ Genesis 9:2
**As far as we know**, Noah and his family weren't commanded to abstain from incest and sexual relations with close relatives, like we find a little bit later in the Law of God.

So, are you suggesting that since Noah didn't have certain commands, that it's okay to do things from a time frame prior to what God has revealed as sin and abominable?

adam and Eve's children had sex with each other. Albeit, genetics were different back then. Humans weren't polluted. But, we can't jump way back and say things like "see! They did it, so we can too!"

I admit, that it does seem that Noah could
Have had permission to eat unclean animals, but at the same time, i don't see where he was commanded to not do certain things that are clearly abominable and sinful, such as incest. Same for Adam and Eve.

With your logic, we might as well go back to the rules of Adam and Eve and be naked and eat fruits, veggies, nuts & seeds and procreate with our brothers and sisters

I'm sure you can see what kind of issues this logic causes.
 
Upvote 0

stuart lawrence

Well-Known Member
Oct 21, 2015
10,527
1,603
65
✟70,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
**As far as we know**, Noah and his family weren't commanded to abstain from incest and sexual relations with close relatives, like we find a little bit later in the Law of God.

So, are you suggesting that since Noah didn't have certain commands, that it's okay to do things from a time frame prior to what God has revealed as sin and abominable?

adam and Eve's children had sex with each other. Albeit, genetics were different back then. Humans weren't polluted. But, we can't jump way back and say things like "see! They did it, so we can too!"

I admit, that it does seem that Noah could
Have had permission to eat unclean animals, but at the same time, i don't see where he was commanded to not do certain things that are clearly abominable and sinful, such as incest. Same for Adam and Eve.

With your logic, we might as well go back to the rules of Adam and Eve and be naked and eat fruits, veggies, nuts & seeds and procreate with our brothers and sisters

I'm sure you can see what kind of issues this logic causes.
But God didn't tell Noah he was free to sleep with every woman on the planet and commit incest, only he could eat all its food
 
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,560
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Who ever said that the "word of God" is the New Testament?

Nobody in this thread. However, since the Word of God "at that time" was what we now call the "Old Testament" then when the point being made says the food was Sanctified by the Word of God," the reference is to the OT which then means... the reference is to what God called FOOD and pig, catfish, et. al., are not "food" according to the OT.

The Word of God was Jesus.

The bible didn't become flesh, the memra (Aramaic) or davar (Hebrew) was made flesh... it is that which comes forth from God, the active force that can manipulate the physical. Christians would do well to read the Targums (translations/paraphrases from before Christ) which are written in Aramaic and use "Word" (Memra) often in place of God's name. But... it isn't a reference to what is written. The verse in question in this thread is dealing with the written.

Therefore, the statement in First Timothy that "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer" suggests the same exact thing as the vision of Peter, that the clean and unclean animals were made sanctified by Jesus.

Absolutely not. Not only is there no verse that has Yeshua saying bat dung is clean to eat... but Peter's vision was specifically about PEOPLE not food. God used unclean animals... something Peter was familiar with... as the abstract pictures to make His point. But Peter himself told the Jews when he came back from being with Cornelius that God showed him that the PEOPLE should not be called unclean. Peter's vision has no more to do with food than the Pharaoh's dreams were a warning to farmers to never place their healthy cows in the same pen as any sick ones!

Please do as you are convicted.
Peace.
Ken
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Dkh587
Upvote 0

Dkh587

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 6, 2014
3,049
1,770
Southeast
✟552,407.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I suppose it would take the actual words of scripture saying Jesus made all foods clean to convince you . So here you are!

Mark 7:18-19 And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
NASU
The words "thus he declared all foods clean" in parenthesis are not in the Greek manuscript. They were added by the translators. Christ did not make unclean animals clean.

I've shown over - the context is about eating with unwashed hands, and that eating with unwashed hands does NOT defile a person. Christ was shutting down their manmade traditions.

The subject was not clean and unclean animals!
 
Upvote 0

stuart lawrence

Well-Known Member
Oct 21, 2015
10,527
1,603
65
✟70,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Don't you understand, that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean. For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach and then out of him
Mark7:18&19

If the words of Jesus, the Apostle paul( rom14:14&20) and the leaders of the first century Church are to be ignored( Acts ch 15) don't be too offended if yours will be also in this thread
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dkh587

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 6, 2014
3,049
1,770
Southeast
✟552,407.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Your disobeying God by calling things unclean, look.
Acts chapter 10


9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.


Look here in verse 15
“Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
If you would, view my post in this thread:

What foods does the Father want us to eat?

I explained Peter's vision much more in depth and in context. The link will take you straight to my post.

Peter's vision is so often taken out of context to attempt to teach that it is okay to eat unclean animals, when in fact, the vision wasn't about food at all per Acts Of The Apostles 10:28

It is a challenge for many to accept what the vision is actually about - Most don't want to admit they were wrong about eating unclean animals, and that they were wrong that Peter's vision isn't about eating unclean animals at all.

I was there. I was ignorant. I stuck to what common churchianity doctrine told me. But when I started to study for myself, I saw that what most people taught and thought about Peter's vision is wrong.
 
Upvote 0

31gH9N.9.

Active Member
Dec 27, 2016
189
83
33
USA
✟30,995.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
**As far as we know**, Noah and his family weren't commanded to abstain from incest and sexual relations with close relatives, like we find a little bit later in the Law of God.

So, are you suggesting that since Noah didn't have certain commands, that it's okay to do things from a time frame prior to what God has revealed as sin and abominable?

adam and Eve's children had sex with each other. Albeit, genetics were different back then. Humans weren't polluted. But, we can't jump way back and say things like "see! They did it, so we can too!"

I admit, that it does seem that Noah could
Have had permission to eat unclean animals, but at the same time, i don't see where he was commanded to not do certain things that are clearly abominable and sinful, such as incest. Same for Adam and Eve.

With your logic, we might as well go back to the rules of Adam and Eve and be naked and eat fruits, veggies, nuts & seeds and procreate with our brothers and sisters

I'm sure you can see what kind of issues this logic causes.

It all still seems to me that God's law changes in one way or another, whether that's just adding to it or subtracting from it. I could be missing something though. I'm honestly not totally convinced by either side.

I know you wrote somewhere on this forum about why we are not required to abide by the laws that concern the temple and such, why is that so much different than the rest of God's law?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dkh587
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The words "thus he declared all foods clean" in parenthesis are not in the Greek manuscript. They were added by the translators. Christ did not make unclean animals clean.

I've shown over - the context is about eating with unwashed hands, and that eating with unwashed hands does NOT defile a person. Christ was shutting down their manmade traditions.

The subject was not clean and unclean animals!

the words certainly are there. I checked myself. We have the very word "katharizoon", which is the present active participle form . . . meaning "cleansing" in the sense of "making clean". Ritually clean. Legally clean. The translators . . . I'm pleased you noticed it was many translators, not just one . . . inform us it is Jesus that is meant to be the one making all meats clean, and your refusal to acknowledge the decree of our Savior is on you.
 
Upvote 0

Tutorman

Charismatic Episcopalian
Jun 20, 2017
1,637
1,349
52
california
✟103,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
All I can do is share the word of God with you - if you choose to eat abominations, despite knowing what the word says, that's between you & God. I'm not here to force you to change your eating habits, nor can I make you change them.

may those that have ears to hear, hear!

So you wish to place yourself under the law that leads to death, I choose to live under grace that leads to life I wish you well but know this if you break even one small jot or tittle of the law you are guilty of breaking the whole thing. You see we are no longer under the law in Christ and for the Christian no food is unclean.
 
Upvote 0

Dkh587

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 6, 2014
3,049
1,770
Southeast
✟552,407.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It all still seems to me that God's law changes in one way or another, whether that's just adding to it or subtracting from it. I could be missing something though. I'm honestly not totally convinced by either side.

I know you wrote somewhere on this forum about why we are not required to abide by the laws that concern the temple and such, why is that SO much different than the rest of God's law?
I would agree that certain aspects of God's law change - moreso in a way which he will add to it, or amend it. Maybe that's what happened in regards to Noah, and the apparent command to eat all living things that move. I can't say for sure.

However, I think when it comes to doing things that God considers detestable, defiling & unclean, such as eating unclean animals, I have a hard time believing that once it's revealed, that God would change it and make things the exact opposite: that it's no longer unclean, detestable and defiling to eat unclean animals.

For example, God expressed that both homosexuality and eating unclean animals are abominations. Leviticus 18:22 shows us (homosexuality) is an abomination.

Once something is revealed by God to be an abomination, detestable and defiling, what kinda sense does it make that one day, God decides that it's no longer defiling. Why would certain abominations still be abominations, yet others are no longer abominations because of Christ's death & resurrection?

Could we be interpreting the verse in Genesis wrong?

Things can change, but to what extent?

And to answer your question about the temple, We CANT obey all the laws regarding the temple. The temple isn't there. It's coming back, but right now, we don't have one to go to.

The righteous live by faith. Daniel didn't have access to the temple, but he was still a righteous man because he lived by faith. Daniel was part of the Original/Old Covenant. That's what God is asking of us: faith.

the Levitical priesthood is on hold right now - it will be back in the Millenium. To what extent, I don't know, but the book of Ezekiel talks about it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dkh587

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 6, 2014
3,049
1,770
Southeast
✟552,407.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So you wish to place yourself under the law that leads to death, I choose to live under grace that leads to life I wish you well but know this if you break even one small jot or tittle of the law you are guilty of breaking the whole thing. You see we are no longer under the law in Christ and for the Christian no food is unclean.

I don't trust in God's law for my salvation. Being under grace does not mean it's okay to sin and live contrary to what God has revealed in his law. Is it okay to be a harlot under grace? Is it okay to be a witch under grace? No, and it's not okay to eat unclean animals under grace.

Christ didn't die so we can live abominably and any kind of way we want to.

I trust in Christ for salvation. This doesn't mean it's okay to eat unclean animals and break God's law whenever you feel like it. Certainly you would agree that being under grace doesn't mean that we are free to break God's commands, no?
 
Upvote 0

Tutorman

Charismatic Episcopalian
Jun 20, 2017
1,637
1,349
52
california
✟103,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The law was for the Jewish people not us. As Monk Brendan said here What foods does the Father want us to eat?

As you have not accepted the Grace that Jesus brought forth from Hiss death and resurrection, that also means that you have not accepted his grace for salvation, either.
 
Upvote 0

Dkh587

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 6, 2014
3,049
1,770
Southeast
✟552,407.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The law was for the Jewish people not us. As Monk Brendan said here What foods does the Father want us to eat?
If you don't want to answer my questions, and instead would rather accuse me of not accepting Christ as my salvation, feel free to put me on ignore. I asked you questions that you skipped over to accuse me.

What's crazy, is people were saying earlier that I accused them and said that they would not inherit the kingdom of God(which I didn't say) and now people are saying I reject Christ, which means I won't inherit the kingdom of God.

Irony is so ironic!
 
Upvote 0

Tutorman

Charismatic Episcopalian
Jun 20, 2017
1,637
1,349
52
california
✟103,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If you want to follow the law that is rejecting Christ. You say you are a believer than I have to accept that but you also appear to want to be a judaizer when as gentiles we are not required to follow Jewish law. Whoever told you to follow Jewish law as a Christian lied to you.

Such people teach that it is wrong to marry and to eat certain foods. But God created those foods to be eaten, after a prayer of thanks, by those who are believers and have come to know the truth. Everything that God has created is good; nothing is to be rejected, but everything is to be received with a prayer of thanks,

1 Time4:3-4
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nato12

New Member
May 22, 2015
3
6
✟7,862.00
Country
Russian Federation
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Wow, what an interesting post! Clearly there is no simple, bright line rule for christians. Then again, Jesus commanded his disciples to spread the Gospel. Does the Gospel include the law? Are we imposing the Hebraic law and covenants upon the whole world? Or spreading salvation through Jesus? I think the latter, though with regard the law see the following verses:

1 Corinthians 9:20-22King James Version (KJV)
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
- - -
So, my reading leads me to conclude that if you are one like Peter, and wrought effectually to the apostleship of the circumcision (see Galatians 2:8), then you ought to become as a Jew, as under the law, that you might gain them that are under the law. That means, observe Sabbath, do not go around eating ham sandiches and talking about how delicious that might be. How could you win people if you just go around breaking their traditions and culture?

By the same token, maybe you are one like Paul and work effectually among the Gentiles. In Japan, they eat alot of shellfish, unclean animals (shrimp tempura? tonkatsu?). If you follow Paul's example, you would become as without law, but under the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21), that you might gain them that are without law. It could render your Gospel less effective if you go around insulting your hosts by appearing to disrespect their fine cuisine, and always insisting on special dietary restrictions and strange eating habits. Who wants to take on Christ + all those useless foreign ideas? To a Gentile nation that has never heard of Abraham or Moses, it might seem like you are promoting some superstition or new fad diet, and separates you by making you seem not like them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.