Eat bacon, worship on Sunday, and never think by keeping the law you'll get to heaven (2)

from scratch · Feb 10, 2014

Godisgood12 said:
Actually, Paul does say that.

Where did Paul say if some one comes into your house hide or throw out breakfast (the bacon)?

from scratch · Feb 10, 2014

MoreCoffee said:
I searched for 'bacon' and it is not in the bible.

By george I think you're right.

from scratch · Feb 10, 2014

Godisgood12 said:
A pig eater wants a verse.

Lord have mercy

Hi pig eater. Why do you want a verse?

Gregory Thompson · Feb 10, 2014

Eat shrimp wrapped in bacon, served in a clamshell .

from scratch · Feb 10, 2014

Michael Collum said:
Eat shrimp wrapped in bacon, served in a clamshell .

My bacon is to stiff to wrap anything. Some call it burnt. I call it crisp.

Gregory Thompson · Feb 11, 2014

from scratch said:
My bacon is to stiff to wrap anything. Some call it burnt. I call it crisp.

Godisgood12 · Feb 11, 2014

I wasn't thinking about foot-in-mouth as a delicacy. To each it's own.

Romans 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

from scratch · Feb 11, 2014

Godisgood12 said:
I wasn't thinking about foot-in-mouth as a delicacy. To each it's own.

Romans 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

Hello MJohn7.

Godisgood12 · Feb 11, 2014

from scratch said:
Hello MJohn7.

God isn't the author of confusion. Say your chapter and verse and your supposed point, then we can discuss.

Love is far greater.

Who gave you cause to doubt?

from scratch · Feb 11, 2014

Godisgood12 said:
God isn't the author of confusion. Say your chapter and verse and your supposed point, then we can discuss.

Love is far greater.

Who gave you cause to doubt?

That's right and we know about the author of confusion and division. For me to say anything more would only get me into trouble.

Godisgood12 · Feb 11, 2014

from scratch said:
That's right and we know about the author of confusion and division. For me to say anything more would only get me into trouble.

So it is good to not brag about eating bacon in front of a brother that resists eating bacon?

I noticed froglegs really encouraged troubling others.

from scratch · Feb 11, 2014

Godisgood12 said:
So it is good to not brag about eating bacon in front of a brother that resists eating bacon?

I noticed froglegs really encouraged troubling others.

If eating bacon offends you, don't come to our house at meal time. In CF that is 24hours a day 365 days every year.

Yes we miss frog legs.

Oh Frogster, where art thou? A summons has been sent.

FredVB · Feb 12, 2014

from scratch said:
Then please explain why you said something about there still being blood in the meat. Eating blood is forbidden by the law. To me this raises the objection of eating meat to avoid eating blood. This isn't the first time I've posted about this. I'm sure I can find you quoted in my post as saying such.

Fred V B said:
Once again, it was already brought up, and I have a valid point, it is in the Bible, and it is for Jews and gentiles alike, and so it not of the law. I also show things about meat for us not really being part of Yahweh's perfect design for us, nor what there is to be for us forever, and it is not needed, not healthier, not better for the environment for having, and is with plenty of abuse not to mention the billions of animals being slaughtered. All buying meat to have are having a part in all this.

from scratch said:
So what are you looking for? I addressed your point. Are you really asking for me to condemn meat eaters and become a veggie? Would that be evangelism looking for converts?

Fred V B said:
You do love to say of others that they must be evangelizing for converts, I see it said often, of me and of others. Believers should not be condemning other believers, it is unfortunate that I see it at all. I won't play any part in that. There is no condemnation in eating meat, I have said that before. But it is better to avoid, I share all those reasons for saying so. It is not hard either. But if you have meat, you are disobeying what Yahweh God told for you unless you remove the blood.

from scratch said:
Where did Paul say if some one comes into your house hide or throw out breakfast (the bacon)?

Godisgood12 said:
I wasn't thinking about foot-in-mouth as a delicacy. To each it's own.

Romans 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

from scratch said:
If eating bacon offends you, don't come to our house at meal time. In CF that is 24hours a day 365 days every year.

I wasn't answered the last time (see it does happen so), but I can say about this anyway, that there is adherence to bad logic to avoid the spirit of the scripture. CF is hardly any one's home, it is for any and all Christian believers, if they will, to come and communicate together, the theology forum is just one of the places in it for such communication, in this case theology, but not to abandon standards of Christian communication otherwise. I am aware some with whom I communicate might be trolling, but I deal with what is said with giving it the benefit of the doubt as being sincere, though it is an approach I should see to my posting yet don't on several occasions.

It is as it is in church, Christians are communicating and the message of the scriptures is saying believers are not to speak things purposely to offend the sensibilities of others, in which there is not furtherance of the essential gospel. I recognise it well enough, it is seen frequently by vegetarians of what carnists deliberately say, or do, for offending them or even being hurtful, it is of course a malicious spirit. They might be provoked because of an uncomfortable truth challenging them. If someone comes to my home that saying deliberately or doing things that would knowingly be offending or hurtful to the visitor still shouldn't even happen. Yet this is seen happening in these sorts of threads, as is pointed out, and that being from those such as say that it is love, that they supposedly have, that covers everything so that they are not obliged to commandments.

MoreCoffee said:
Have you read Mark 7:19?

The context of that passage is not at all about unclean foods, but that hands being washed or not was not an issue.

MoreCoffee · Feb 12, 2014

Fred V B said:
The context of that passage is not at all about unclean foods, but that hands being washed or not was not an issue.

I agree that the context is about washing but the narrator (the evangelist Mark) observes that the Lord's comment makes all foods clean and Mark does not mean thereby that all foods are washed but that no food is ceremonially unclean because Jesus words ended the obligation to observe ceremonial cleanliness (both washing and avoidance of certain animal flesh).

Mark 7:14-23 14 After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, "Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16 ["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."]

17 When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18 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, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) 20 And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."

FredVB · Feb 14, 2014

Fred V B said:
I wasn't answered the last time (see it does happen so), but I can say about this anyway, that there is adherence to bad logic to avoid the spirit of the scripture. CF is hardly any one's home, it is for any and all Christian believers, if they will, to come and communicate together, the theology forum is just one of the places in it for such communication, in this case theology, but not to abandon standards of Christian communication otherwise. I am aware some with whom I communicate might be trolling, but I deal with what is said with giving it the benefit of the doubt as being sincere, though it is an approach I should see to my posting yet don't on several occasions.

It is as it is in church, Christians are communicating and the message of the scriptures is saying believers are not to speak things purposely to offend the sensibilities of others, in which there is not furtherance of the essential gospel. I recognise it well enough, it is seen frequently by vegetarians of what carnists deliberately say, or do, for offending them or even being hurtful, it is of course a malicious spirit. They might be provoked because of an uncomfortable truth challenging them. If someone comes to my home that saying deliberately or doing things that would knowingly be offending or hurtful to the visitor still shouldn't even happen. Yet this is seen happening in these sorts of threads, as is pointed out, and that being from those such as say that it is love, that they supposedly have, that covers everything so that they are not obliged to commandments.

The context of that passage is not at all about unclean foods, but that hands being washed or not was not an issue.

MoreCoffee said:
I agree that the context is about washing but the narrator (the evangelist Mark) observes that the Lord's comment makes all foods clean and Mark does not mean thereby that all foods are washed but that no food is ceremonially unclean because Jesus words ended the obligation to observe ceremonial cleanliness (both washing and avoidance of certain animal flesh).
Mark 7:14-23 14 After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, "Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16 ["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."]

17 When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18 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, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) 20 And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."

With you replying Coffee to what I post I would answer, which I can do, though Scratch gives appearance that he cannot respond to my points yet is never seen to say one he disagreed with is right.

This conclusion, that all foods that were said by Yahweh God to be unclean for the people of Israel were now all clean even for all, is from a phrase not even in all the manuscripts, and with still accepting it with all the rest as scripture from God, that is still an interpretation that should be backed up definitively with other scripture passages, and there are none. From the context itself what is declared clean is food that would be had, whether hands used were washed or not or whether the food was or wasn't. No scripture beyond that one interpretation of the one passage used suggests Jews were made free to have unkosher food.

MoreCoffee · Feb 14, 2014

Fred V B said:
With you replying Coffee to what I post I would answer, which I can do, though Scratch gives appearance that he cannot respond to my points yet is never seen to say one he disagreed with is right.

This conclusion, that all foods that were said by Yahweh God to be unclean for the people of Israel were now all clean even for all, is from a phrase not even in all the manuscripts, and with still accepting it with all the rest as scripture from God, that is still an interpretation that should be backed up definitively with other scripture passages, and there are none. From the context itself what is declared clean is food that would be had, whether hands used were washed or not or whether the food was or wasn't. No scripture beyond that one interpretation of the one passage used suggests Jews were made free to have unkosher food.

I do not see the relevance of your comment about what manuscripts contain the narrator's comment. In fact I see that Mark 7:16 is textually uncertain but not Mark 7:19b. I think you are mistaken on that point.

In the passage Jesus' line of argument is that eating with unwashed hands is not a violation of the Law of Moses even if it violates "the tradition of the elders", who were evidently leading rabbis of past times accorded great respect by the Pharisees, and that following that tradition would in this case "leave the commandment of God and hold the tradition of men". Jesus concludes the first part of the argument by observing that there are many things that the Pharisees do which make void the word of God.

Then Jesus declares to the crowd of people he calls to himself "Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him."

Upon entering a house his disciples ask him in private about what he just said. Jesus mildly rebukes them and explains his words thus "Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" And it is at this point that saint Mark the evangelist - with the benefit of hindsight - writes his comment "Thus he declared all foods clean."

None of this is difficult, except perhaps understanding how Mark makes the leap from Jesus saying that what people eat is expelled after digestion and thus is not the source of defilement in a person. But Christian traditions informs us that Mark was saint Peter's assistant and that his gospel reflects the teaching of Peter. And since it is recorded in The Acts of the Apostles that Peter saw a vision about foods as a means of teaching him not to call anything (and especially any person) unclean it is not too hard to understand why the gospel of Mark includes this statement about the declaration of all foods clean. So, Mark's statement in Mark 7:19 is in fact supported (backed up, if you prefer) by other passages of scripture. And the behaviour of the apostles when among gentiles points to disregard for the rules of ceremonial cleanliness. Consider saint Paul's rebuke of Peter for not eating with the gentiles even though the laws of cleanliness appear to forbid it (See Galatians 2).

You finish your post by denying that any Jew would eat foods that were not kosher. I reply that as long as such a person remained a Jew they would not eat outside the rules of ceremonial cleanliness yet all of the apostles and Paul were Jews before they came to Christ as his disciples and once they were Christians they ceased to be Jews having left that religion.

There is a problem with the use of the word "Jew" because it is used in some cases to mean the religion and in other cases to mean the connection to Abraham and the patriarchs by natural generation. That problem persists to this day. So I think it useful to speak of Christian and non-christian in this context. Jews who are not Christians persist in Kosher rules if they want to. Jews who are Christians are not commanded by the Lord to keep kosher. That is why all Christians share a meal in remembrance of Jesus Christ. One cannot share a religious meal with those who are not of one's religion, right? It would be wrong to do so. Thus if a Hindu and a Kosher observing religious Jew came to share in Holy Communion without first becoming Christian it would be withheld from them for their own sake. But If the same people became Christian then they could share the meal with their brothers and sisters in the faith. None would would be unclean in God's eyes.

from scratch · Feb 15, 2014

Fred V B said:
With you replying Coffee to what I post I would answer, which I can do, though Scratch gives appearance that he cannot respond to my points yet is never seen to say one he disagreed with is right.

This conclusion, that all foods that were said by Yahweh God to be unclean for the people of Israel were now all clean even for all, is from a phrase not even in all the manuscripts, and with still accepting it with all the rest as scripture from God, that is still an interpretation that should be backed up definitively with other scripture passages, and there are none. From the context itself what is declared clean is food that would be had, whether hands used were washed or not or whether the food was or wasn't. No scripture beyond that one interpretation of the one passage used suggests Jews were made free to have unkosher food.

Is Peter's vision from God? In the vision God said rise and eat 3 times. Then God said don't call unclean what I call clean. The vision certainly wasn't about eating Gentiles.

FredVB · Feb 16, 2014

from scratch said:
Then please explain why you said something about there still being blood in the meat. Eating blood is forbidden by the law. To me this raises the objection of eating meat to avoid eating blood. This isn't the first time I've posted about this. I'm sure I can find you quoted in my post as saying such.

Fred V B said:
Once again, it was already brought up, and I have a valid point, it is in the Bible, and it is for Jews and gentiles alike, and so it not of the law. I also show things about meat for us not really being part of Yahweh's perfect design for us, nor what there is to be for us forever, and it is not needed, not healthier, not better for the environment for having, and is with plenty of abuse not to mention the billions of animals being slaughtered. All buying meat to have are having a part in all this.

from scratch said:
So what are you looking for? I addressed your point. Are you really asking for me to condemn meat eaters and become a veggie? Would that be evangelism looking for converts?

Fred V B said:
You do love to say of others that they must be evangelizing for converts, I see it said often, of me and of others. Believers should not be condemning other believers, it is unfortunate that I see it at all. I won't play any part in that. There is no condemnation in eating meat, I have said that before. But it is better to avoid, I share all those reasons for saying so. It is not hard either. But if you have meat, you are disobeying what Yahweh God told for you unless you remove the blood.

from scratch said:
Where did Paul say if some one comes into your house hide or throw out breakfast (the bacon)?

Godisgood12 said:
I wasn't thinking about foot-in-mouth as a delicacy. To each it's own.

Romans 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

from scratch said:
If eating bacon offends you, don't come to our house at meal time. In CF that is 24hours a day 365 days every year.

MoreCoffee said:
Have you read Mark 7:19?

Fred V B said:
I wasn't answered the last time (see it does happen so), but I can say about this anyway, that there is adherence to bad logic to avoid the spirit of the scripture. CF is hardly any one's home, it is for any and all Christian believers, if they will, to come and communicate together, the theology forum is just one of the places in it for such communication, in this case theology, but not to abandon standards of Christian communication otherwise. I am aware some with whom I communicate might be trolling, but I deal with what is said with giving it the benefit of the doubt as being sincere, though it is an approach I should see to my posting yet don't on several occasions.

It is as it is in church, Christians are communicating and the message of the scriptures is saying believers are not to speak things purposely to offend the sensibilities of others, in which there is not furtherance of the essential gospel. I recognise it well enough, it is seen frequently by vegetarians of what carnists deliberately say, or do, for offending them or even being hurtful, it is of course a malicious spirit. They might be provoked because of an uncomfortable truth challenging them. If someone comes to my home that saying deliberately or doing things that would knowingly be offending or hurtful to the visitor still shouldn't even happen. Yet this is seen happening in these sorts of threads, as is pointed out, and that being from those such as say that it is love, that they supposedly have, that covers everything so that they are not obliged to commandments.

The context of that passage is not at all about unclean foods, but that hands being washed or not was not an issue.

MoreCoffee said:
I do not see the relevance of your comment about what manuscripts contain the narrator's comment. In fact I see that Mark 7:16 is textually uncertain but not Mark 7:19b. I think you are mistaken on that point.

In the passage Jesus' line of argument is that eating with unwashed hands is not a violation of the Law of Moses even if it violates "the tradition of the elders", who were evidently leading rabbis of past times accorded great respect by the Pharisees, and that following that tradition would in this case "leave the commandment of God and hold the tradition of men". Jesus concludes the first part of the argument by observing that there are many things that the Pharisees do which make void the word of God.

Then Jesus declares to the crowd of people he calls to himself "Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him."

Upon entering a house his disciples ask him in private about what he just said. Jesus mildly rebukes them and explains his words thus "Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" And it is at this point that saint Mark the evangelist - with the benefit of hindsight - writes his comment "Thus he declared all foods clean."

None of this is difficult, except perhaps understanding how Mark makes the leap from Jesus saying that what people eat is expelled after digestion and thus is not the source of defilement in a person. But Christian traditions informs us that Mark was saint Peter's assistant and that his gospel reflects the teaching of Peter. And since it is recorded in The Acts of the Apostles that Peter saw a vision about foods as a means of teaching him not to call anything (and especially any person) unclean it is not too hard to understand why the gospel of Mark includes this statement about the declaration of all foods clean. So, Mark's statement in Mark 7:19 is in fact supported (backed up, if you prefer) by other passages of scripture. And the behaviour of the apostles when among gentiles points to disregard for the rules of ceremonial cleanliness. Consider saint Paul's rebuke of Peter for not eating with the gentiles even though the laws of cleanliness appear to forbid it (See Galatians 2).

You finish your post by denying that any Jew would eat foods that were not kosher. I reply that as long as such a person remained a Jew they would not eat outside the rules of ceremonial cleanliness yet all of the apostles and Paul were Jews before they came to Christ as his disciples and once they were Christians they ceased to be Jews having left that religion.

There is a problem with the use of the word "Jew" because it is used in some cases to mean the religion and in other cases to mean the connection to Abraham and the patriarchs by natural generation. That problem persists to this day. So I think it useful to speak of Christian and non-christian in this context. Jews who are not Christians persist in Kosher rules if they want to. Jews who are Christians are not commanded by the Lord to keep kosher. That is why all Christians share a meal in remembrance of Jesus Christ. One cannot share a religious meal with those who are not of one's religion, right? It would be wrong to do so. Thus if a Hindu and a Kosher observing religious Jew came to share in Holy Communion without first becoming Christian it would be withheld from them for their own sake. But If the same people became Christian then they could share the meal with their brothers and sisters in the faith. None would would be unclean in God's eyes.

from scratch said:
Is Peter's vision from God? In the vision God said rise and eat 3 times. Then God said don't call unclean what I call clean. The vision certainly wasn't about eating Gentiles.

See all the previous in my response to Scratch that was apparently not regarded. with no further response.

To Coffee, Mark 7:19 does not have "Thus he declared all foods clean" in Egyptian type of text as shown in Critical Texts. The interpretation that you endorse is with that one phrase of one verse, alone, and it is not necessarily showing that it includes all foods that were not kosher and rather all foods that they were actually eating as they would not eat the wrong foods with their heart right. Both of you Coffee and Scratch be sure to see things from the contexts, the contexts do not show the same thing as what is being claimed. Checking the context for everything to show what that vision in Acts is about will show what it is. It is about the people who were not to be called unclean when Yahweh God calls them clean. That is all anything in the context shows the vision to be. So it is not backing up that interpretation of the Mark 7:19 passage, however much that is desired.

I have no reason to agree that "once they were Christians they ceased to be Jews". From what was revealed from Yahweh the one God, there is no contradiction.

BobRyan · Feb 17, 2014

from scratch said:
Is Peter's vision from God? In the vision God said rise and eat 3 times. Then God said don't call unclean what I call clean. The vision certainly wasn't about eating Gentiles.

Peter explained that vision 3 times - maybe we should listen to him and drop the rat-sandwich idea. Peter said "call no MAN unclean" at no point does Peter hold up a rat sandwich and start a whole new option for Christian dinning.

in Christ,

Bob

FredVB · Feb 18, 2014

BobRyan said:
Peter explained that vision 3 times - maybe we should listen to him and drop the rat-sandwich idea. Peter said "call no MAN unclean" at no point does Peter hold up a rat sandwich and start a whole new option for Christian dinning.

That's right. Nothing in the context makes the vision about all now having permission to eat anything, it is all about the people Yahweh God calls clean to not be called or treated as unclean.

Eat bacon, worship on Sunday, and never think by keeping the law you'll get to heaven (2)

from scratch

Guest

from scratch

Guest

from scratch

Guest

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

from scratch

Guest

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Member

from scratch

Guest

Member

from scratch

Guest

Member

from scratch

Guest

Regular Member

Repentance works.

Regular Member

Repentance works.

from scratch

Guest

Regular Member

Junior Member

Regular Member

Similar threads