GOD'S DIETARY LAWS AND BAT SOUP STEW - COVID 19

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I dunno'. . .the apostle Mark disagrees with you, those are his words in black.

There is some serious misreading of the NT going on here.
Not really Clare. As posted earlier that is added in by the translators and not written in the original Greek which is why in the translations it is added it is added in brackets. See previous post # 220 linked section on Mark 7. There is no Jesus "declared all foods clean" in the Greek. The misreading here is on your side. Look at the Greek and prayerfully dig a little deeper.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
9,994
4,221
USA
✟467,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I dunno'. . .the apostle Mark disagrees with you, those are his words in black.

There is some serious misreading of the NT going on here.
Agree about misreadings.
These were Jesus Words, from Marks perspective.

The verse is referring to spiritual uncleanness, not what someone is literally eating. It was a parable Jesus was teaching and if you read the whole scripture not just that verses you can put it in its proper context.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Agreed.
These were Jesus Words, from Marks perspective.

The verse is referring to spiritual uncleanness, not what someone is literally eating. It was a parable Jesus was teaching and if you read the whole scripture not just that verses you can put it in its proper context.
Jesus declaring all foods clean is a mistranslation and not written in the Greek.
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If it is not clean medically how can it be clean ceremonially and spiritually?

Because God decides. Not our reaon or what may or may not appear logical to us! Jesus said nothing outside a man can defile them! that is a direct reference to the ceremonial part of the Mosaic Law. So there is no spiritual corruption by eating something!

This is not talking about clean and unclean foods but foods offered to Idols (see v28).

And they are clean to eat if someone doesn't say they are offered to idols as well.

But yes in the context of Mark it is directly talking about washing hands, but Jesus brought it further! If you are paying attention;

14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:

15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.

18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

Jesus already had excoriated the Pharisees about the washing of hands. then went on to talk about teh false law of Corban. then came to verses 14-20

The key words are NOTHING outside a man can defile him! So eating with dirty hands, eating pork, eating bats cannot ceremonially defile a Jew!

Nowe th church has no ceremony where we must be ritually pure or unpure like the Jews had! And if these meats you want banned were a big issue, Then when Paul went to Jerusalem and argued for the gentiles, when James came down with his decision why did he not order Gentiles to keep the laws of Kosher or some of them?

The only dietary prohibition was eating things strangled (for the blood was not drained in those animals)

Jesus spoke about Jewish law and the church is not under any of the 613 Mosaic Laws.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,017
10,458
Georgia
✟895,474.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
..
The only dietary prohibition was eating things strangled (for the blood was not drained in those animals)
Jesus spoke about Jewish law and the church is not under any of the 613 Mosaic Laws.

Acts 15 also does not list "do not take God's name in vain" and does not list "honor your father and mother" nor "do not covet".

It is not a tiny-one-paragraph-bible to be used instead of the 66.

1. There are civil laws, ceremonial laws, moral laws (that define what sin is), and health laws in the Bible (OT and NT).

2. Heb 10:4-12 says that the ceremonial laws dealing with animal sacrifices ended at the cross.

3.In addition the civil laws of any given government end when that government ends. The theocracy that existed in Ex 20... no longer exists on Earth. So the death penalties set by those civil laws can only be enforced if the current government votes to adopt them.

4. The clean vs unclean animal distinctions start before the flood - in Genesis 7:2-3 and 8:20 -- but the definition for those terms is not given to the reader until Lev 11.

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

Jesus died on the cross to save us from sin - but not to "change biology" of animals or humans -- and not to make "evil be considered as good" .
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,842
6,015
North Carolina
✟272,323.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Here Clare lets' add all the contexts back in...

Pre-flood and Moses, man made in God's image (original diet)

Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat (food).

Post-flood and Pre-Moses with no food to eat after the flood...

Genesis 9:3-4 [3] Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.[4] "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.
Post Moses and written law of God's diet for mankind listing all the clean animals safe to eat and the unclean animals that are not safe to eat and cannot be eaten
Leviticus 11:1-47
Deuteronomy 14:1-29
There is nothing in these scriptures that say Gods dietary laws have been abolished.
Agreed. . .nor does the Word of God end with Deuteronomy.

But the NT has in its beginning the revelation to Peter that nothing is unclean. . .reptiles, wild beasts, four-footed animals, birds--
"Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." Three times.
1 Timothy 4:3-5 [3], Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving OF THEM THAT BELIEVE AND KNOW THE TRUTH. [4], For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
Nothing is to be refused" couldn't be any more clear, we are freed from all those distinctions of the ceremonial law regarding food.
[5], FOR IT IS SANCTIFIED BY THE WORD OF GOD AND PRAYER.
It is sanctified, set apart as God's blessing/provision, by the prayer of blessing before eating (Mt 26:26; Mk 6:41, 8:6-7; Lk 9:16, 24:30).
And it is sanctified by the Word of God which authorizes us to eat everything in Ge 9:3 because it is good. . .and it didn't then become harmful in Lev, only to become good again in the New Covenant.

That is nonsense on its face. . .not to mention contrary to the New Covenant of Christian liberty.
This scripture links to...John 17:17 SANCTIFY THEM THROUGH THE TRUTH THY WORD IS TRUTH...
No, just because some of the same words are used does not mean that Jn 17:17 is "linked" to 1Tim 4:5.
To set food apart by prayer as God's blessing/provision for us (1Tim 4:5) is not to grow in holiness via the revelation of God's holy Word
(Jn 17:17).

The serious misreading of the NT continues.
So it is through the Word of God that we are told in 1 Timothy 4:3-5 that all food created by God is to be received in thanks giving to those who know the truth for it is sanctified by the Word of God. That is, God has told us what foods are clean to eat and unclean to eat through the Word of God! (see Leviticus 11:1-47 and Deuteronomy 14:1-29 where God tells us what foods he has created to be received with thanks giving and those that are not to be eaten).
No, "sanctified by the Word of God" does not mean telling us which foods are clean and unclean to eat.
It is "sanctified by the Word of God" in Ge 9:3, which authorizes us to eat everything because it is good.
None of those scripture teach all foods are now clean. Romans 14 is to eating and not eating on days that men esteem over other days and not judging anyone in that regards and eating of foods offered to idols.
None of which alters Paul's clear statements: "no food (nothing) is unclean in itself. . .All food is clean. . ."
Once again nothing to do with clean and unclean food laws. Hebrews 10 is in regards to meat and drink offerings and ordinances.
Which, like all the ceremonial laws including the the food laws, were temporary, until the time of the new order (Heb 9:10),
i.e., the New Covenant.
Once again nothing to do with clean and unclean food laws 1 Corinthians 10 is in regards to food offered to idols.
Which they were concerned would be unclean, and Paul revealed they were not unclean (1Co 10:25).
No of course God is not confused, but it seems many are when it comes to God's dietary laws. Nowhere in the scriptures does it say in Mark 7 or the other gospels that Jesus is saying all unclean foods are now clean as the context is to the washing of pots and cups and hands not eating clean and unclean foods.

It also does not make any difference to me which translations are used in Mark 7:19 for the Greek word καθαρίζον used for clean means to purify ("declared" is not in the Greek it was added by the translators) the application of either Greek words meanings of course is chapter context and subject matter which determines the correct interpretation of the scriptures. They do not fit your interpretation that JESUS is saying all unclean foods are now clean as that is not the context and subject matter of both the scripture *Mark 7:19 and of the chapter context shown in Mark 7:2-23.
Using a single Greek word καθαρίζον which means "purify; cleanse make clean" (declared being added by the translators that is not in the Greek)
And indeed, it is not. . .but is Jesus not clear in that text: "Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him. . .
Are you do dull? Don't you see that nothing that enters man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?"
is in context in the scripture to the word ἐκπορεύομαι which means to go out of the body or purge and after of course πάντα βρώματα (all food). The chapter context of course is to the washing of cups and pots and hands making someone κοινόω unclean or defiled not "unclean foods" *Mark 7:2-5 not to eating unclean foods prohibited in God's dietary laws of Leviticus 11.

The point of the scripture being to the chapter context and subject matter, is not the "washing of pots and cups and not washing of the hands that makes a man unclean a man (defiled)" (Mark 7:8) but breaking God's commandments and what comes out of the heart and mouth of the man that defiles (makes unclean) a man.

The context of making all meats clean is to the "purging out of the body" of impurities from not washing cups and pots and it is following man made teachings and traditions that break the commandments of God over the Word of God that defile (makes unclean) the man, not what one eats which passes out of the man *Mark 7:2-23. The chapter subject matter is not to eating unclean foods as they were all JEWS who followed the food laws of Leviticus 11 but the subject matter was to eating food with unwashed hands, pots and cups *Mark 7:2-5.
To make clean, to cleanse; a. from physical stains and dirt. You can see that the application here is to the context of "purging out or cleansing all food from the system by passing out that which is impure or unclean" from the body.
No, that is clear distortion, as in your other "readings."
Nothing (not just filth from pots and pans) that enters a man can make him unclean (including any kind of food) because nothing remains in the body to make him unclean; i.e., food, no matter what it is, cannot make you unclean.
That is, the nutritious part of the food remains while that which is defiled or unclean passes out of the man.
Precisely. . ."Nothing that enters a man. . .can make him 'unclean'. " (Mk 7:14-18)
The above post I hope demonstrated the context of MARK 7:2-23 and context supersedes word definitions for scripture and chapter interpretations in the Hebrew and the Greek.
There is never a conflict between "context" and "word definitions."
But "context" has become pretext here.
The context of Mark 7:2-23 is to pots and cups not clean and unclean foods prohibited from the old testament dietary laws of Leviticus 11.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
NT 2511: καθαρίζω
καθαρίζω (Hellenistic for καθαίρω, which classic writings use); Attic future (cf. Buttmann, 37 (32); Winers Grammar, § 13, 1 c.; WH's Appendix, p. 163) καθαριῶ (Hebrews 9:14); 1 aorist ἐκαθάρισα (see below); present passive καθαρίζομαι; 1 aorist passive ἐκαθαρίσθην; perfect passive participle κεκαθαρισμενος (Hebrews 10:2 T Tr WH; on the forms ἐκαθερισθη, T WH in Matthew 8:3; Mark 1:42 (ἐκαθερισεν, Tr in Acts 10:15; Acts 11:9) and κεκαθερισμενος Lachmann in Hebrews 10:2, cf. (Tdf. Proleg., p. 82; WH's Appendix, p. 150); Sturz, De dial. Maced. etc., p. 118; Delitzsch on Hebrews 10:2; Krüger, Part ii. § 2, 2, 6, p. 4; (Buttmann, 29 (25f); Winer's Grammar, 43)); (καθαρός; the Sept. mostly for טִהַר;

1. to make clean, to cleanse;
a. from physical stains and dirt: e. g. utensils, Matthew 23:25 (figuratively, Matthew 23:26); Luke 11:39; food, Mark 7:19; τινα, a leper, to cleanse by curing, Matthew 8:2; Matthew 10:8; Matthew 11:5; Mark 1:40-42; Luke 4:27; Luke 5:12; Luke 7:22; Luke 17:14, 17 (Leviticus 14:8); to remove by cleansing: ἡ λέπρα ἐκαθαρίσθη, Matthew 8:3 (καθαριεῖς τό αἷμα τό ἀναίτιον ἐξ Ἰσραήλ, Deuteronomy 19:13; ἐκαθαριζε τήν περί ταῦτα συνήθειαν, the custom of marrying heathen women, Josephus, Antiquities 11, 5, 4; καθαιρεῖν αἷμα, Homer, Iliad 16, 667; cf. ἐκκαθαίρω).

.................
First lesson from the above section of Mark 7 is that context matters in regards to interpretation of the scriptures
Agreed. . .and you've gone to great lengths to distort it.
Nonsense! Of course the dietary laws were health laws otherwise there would be no reason to give them.
Oh, wow! Just wow! You could really use a good study of Leviticus. It's the seedbed of NT doctrine.
See post #250 or #264.

Leviticus 11:44-45 does not say that Gods' food laws are not health laws it says that our holiness comes from believing and following God's Word.
Nor does Leviticus say that the sacrifices were types, shadows, pictures of God's own Son who would likewise be offered as a bloody human sacrifice. But there it is anyway.
Leviticus 11:44-45 For I am the LORD your God: you shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and you shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall you defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creeps on the earth. [45], For I am the LORD that brings you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: you shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.
We become holy by believing and following what God says is the message of Leviticus 11:44-45 (see John 17:17 in the new testament scriptures). The Levitical Priesthood has nothing to do with clean and unclean foods
It has everything to do with the Mosaic Covenant being temporary (Heb 8:13), with the laws being dependent on the Levitical priesthood (Heb 7:11), and the priesthood being temporary (Heb 7:12), making the ceremonial laws temporary (Heb 7:12), including the food laws, according to the apostle Paul (Ro 14:14, 17, 20; 1Co 10:25; Heb 9:10), who received his revelation from Jesus Christ personally, in the third heaven, where he heard things man is not permitted tell (2Co 12:1-5).
Seems it is you that needs to look a little harder.
Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.

Suffice it to say: you do not have a NT understanding of Leviticus and its ceremonial laws.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,017
10,458
Georgia
✟895,474.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Suffice it to say: you do not have a NT understanding of Leviticus and its ceremonial laws.

In the NT "God does not change" -- "Christ is the same yesterday today and forever" Heb 13:8

Christ did not die on the cross to change the biology of animals or humans. Peter reminds us in Acts 10 that even at that late point after the resurrection of Christ - he was not eating rat or cat sandwiches. It is not something that the Gospel was trying to "fix" or "change". Still no rat-burgers or cat-burgers even after the cross.

Peter explains the vision three times in the book of Acts and never brings up the "news" about rat-burgers or cat-burgers as if it were somehow the latest/new gospel truth that has just come up.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,842
6,015
North Carolina
✟272,323.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In the NT "God does not change" -- "Christ is the same yesterday today and forever" Heb 13:8
Are they still offering animal sacrifices over at your church?
Christ did not die on the cross to change the biology of animals or humans. Peter reminds us in Acts 10 that even at that late point after the resurrection of Christ - he was not eating rat or cat sandwiches. It is not something that the Gospel was trying to "fix" or "change". Still no rat-burgers or cat-burgers even after the cross.

Peter explains the vision three times in the book of Acts and never brings up the "news" about rat-burgers or cat-burgers as if it were somehow the latest/new gospel truth that has just come up.
 
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

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,842
6,015
North Carolina
✟272,323.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Blood is the only prohibition for all mankind! For blood is given for a sacrifice!
Blood is not forbidden in the NT. A temporary accommodation regarding strangled meat was made by the Gentiles for the sake of the numerous new Christian Jews in the provinces of Syria and Cilicia.
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Blood is not forbidden in the NT. A temporary accommodation regarding strangled meat was made by the Gentiles for the sake of the numerous new Christian Jews in the provinces of Syria and Cilicia.

James forbade the gentiles from eating meat strangled. I await you to show that it was a biblical temporary accommodation!

this command was given to Noah after he left the ark so it is binding to all mankind and not just Jews!
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Acts 15 also does not list "do not take God's name in vain" and does not list "honor your father and mother" nor "do not covet".

It is not a tiny-one-paragraph-bible to be used instead of the 66.

But they are commanded elsewhere in the Epistles. But if we wish to get real nit picky, no where in Scripture are we given permission to drive a car or ride in a plane, so should we? but in all the Ep[istles, 9 of the 10 commandments were commanded for the church.
 
Upvote 0

truthisfreedom2019

Active Member
Feb 28, 2019
113
77
59
Chetwynd
✟158,088.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Strangled is wrong too. Some things God created not intending for it to be food for people. Jesus said giving your son a snake or a scorpion for food was a bad gift. When our wives prepare a meal for the family they would not like it if we would reject it and eat the napkin. Cannibalism is an extreme example of spiritual corruption.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,842
6,015
North Carolina
✟272,323.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
James forbade the gentiles from eating meat strangled. I await you to show that it was a biblical temporary accommodation!

this command was given to Noah after he left the ark so it is binding to all mankind and not just Jews!
The (eternal) life is in the (faith in the shed/sacrificed) blood (of Messiah, Ro 3:25).
Blood was to be reverenced as a holy, not a common, thing, because of the sacrifice of the cross, where the blood of God's only Son would accomplish God's purpose.

It was binding until the New Covenant, when the blood of the Lamb of God had been shed, its purpose fulfilled and redemption procured.

Strangled meat could be sold in the meat market, which Paul revealed is not unclean (1Co 10:25-31, note v.29).

"Nothing (no food) is unclean in itself." (Ro 14:14)
 
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

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Strangled meat was sold in the meat market, which Paul revealed is not unclean (1Co 10:25-31, note v.29).

"Nothing (no food) is unclean in itself." (Ro 14:14)


I agree no food is unclean of itself! And maybe the shambles sold strangled meat, not likely as that would corrupt the meat faster. But blood was never given for food!

Genesis 9
King James Version

9 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

REconfirmed to the Gentile Churches by James:

Acts 15:29
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Acts 21:25
As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

I do not see this refuted anywhere.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,842
6,015
North Carolina
✟272,323.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Strangled is wrong too. Some things God created not intending for it to be food for people. Jesus said giving your son a snake or a scorpion for food was a bad gift. When our wives prepare a meal for the family they would not like it if we would reject it and eat the napkin. Cannibalism is an extreme example of spiritual corruption.
See post #238, following.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,842
6,015
North Carolina
✟272,323.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I agree no food is unclean of itself! And maybe the shambles sold strangled meat, not likely as that would corrupt the meat faster. But
blood was never given for food!
We have no warrant for that conclusion in the NT.

In all Paul's letters to the churches, he never mentions refraining from eating blood.
In addition, the does state in relation to food things like:

"Everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected."(Tim 4:3-4)

"Nothing is unclean in itself." (Ro 14:14)

"All food is clean." (Ro 14:20) Some thought food sacrificed to idols was defiled.

"But food does not bring us near to God;"
we are no worse or no better if we do or do not eat. (1Co 8:8)

In light of all Paul reveals about our Christian liberty regarding food, do you think the Pharisee of Pharisees, who received his revelation from Jesus Christ personally, in the third heaven (2Co 15:1-5) would have neglected to tell us the one exemption to that liberty: not to eat blood?

I find no NT warrant, either in commission or omission, for concluding that eating of blood is forbidden in the NT.
Genesis 9 King James Version
9 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

REconfirmed to the Gentile Churches by James:

Acts 15:29
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Acts 21:25 - As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
I do not see this refuted anywhere.
A lot of the obsolete Mosaic Covenant (Heb 8:13) and law (Heb 7:12) are not refuted anywhere.

It's not refutation we need, in the NT it's warrant we need.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,017
10,458
Georgia
✟895,474.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
BobRyan said:
Acts 15 also does not list "do not take God's name in vain" and does not list "honor your father and mother" nor "do not covet".

It is not a tiny-one-paragraph-bible to be used instead of the 66.

But they are commanded elsewhere in the Epistles.

1. "Do not take God's name in vain" is not quoted in any part of the NT. (which is why I specifically referenced it in that case)
2. Acts 15 also does not say "ignore what we call scripture - just read letters written at this time"
3. The OT is repeatedly called "scripture" in the NT by the NT writers themselves as well as other ways of referencing it such as "The Holy Spirit says" Heb 3:7

But if we wish to get real nit picky, nowhere in Scripture are we given permission to drive a car or ride in a plane,

True - but no one ever quotes Acts 15 for "don't use a pencil, or don't use a seat belt" etc.. rather they use it for "something in OT not quoted in Acts 15 so ignore it" - the point is that the NT Jerusalem church did not say "ignore scriptures that you read - if it is not quoted in one of the letters we write"
 
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

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,017
10,458
Georgia
✟895,474.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
In all Paul's letters to the churches, he never mentions refraining from eating blood.

Yes that is true - he also never mentions "do not take God's name in vain".

Interesting that the NT church leaders in Acts 15 do include the law to refrain from eating blood -- like this "29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from acts of sexual immorality;"

Paul said that the meat that was ok to eat - is that which the scriptures approved of - "sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer"
 
Upvote 0