• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Are Christians allowed to eat pork under the New Covenant?

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by LittleLambofJesus, Aug 7, 2013.

  1. Yes! It is now lawful under the NC!

  2. No! It is still unlawful under the NC

  3. I am not sure

  4. Other

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Jipsah

    Jipsah Blood Drinker

    +1,584
    Anglican
    Married
    US-Others
    You betcha.

    23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
    24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
    25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
    26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
    27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.


    Our Lord said it was His Body and Blood.
    St. Paul says if you take in an unworthy manner you're sinning against the Body and Blood of our Lord.

    A shame neither of them knew what it really meant, right?

    Ah, so this is another one of those "yeah, that's what the Bible says, but what it really means is..." deals right? The noise that's inevitably made when the Bible squashes someone's favorite doctrine? Got it.

    Y'all need to come up with a New Corrected Version that replaces all those inconvenient bits of Scripture with what they really mean, to keep people from being confused by what they actually say.
     
  2. Bible2+

    Bible2+ Matthew 4:4

    +374
    Christian
    Private
    Note that the original Greek word (G0630) translated as to "put away" in verses like Mark 10:11-12 means to divorce. That's why the same Greek word is translated elsewhere as "divorced" (Matthew 5:32b).

    Under the New Covenant, a husband isn't to divorce his wife (1 Corinthians 7:11b), and a wife isn't to divorce her husband (1 Corinthians 7:10). If a wife does divorce her husband, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband (1 Corinthians 7:11). Regarding becoming reconciled, a Christian must always completely forgive everyone who has wronged him or her in any way (Mark 11:25), no matter how great the wrong and no matter how many times a wrong has been committed (Matthew 18:21-35). For if a Christian refuses to forgive anyone for anything, God will refuse to forgive that Christian for his or her own sins (Mark 11:26).

    If a husband divorces a valid wife and marries another woman, he's committing adultery (Mark 10:11). And if a wife divorces a valid husband and marries another man, she's committing adultery (Mark 10:12). The exception for fornication (as distinguished from adultery) in Matthew 19:9 permits a husband to divorce a valid wife for having had pre-marital sex, and to marry another woman without his committing adultery. But this applies only to cases where a husband doesn't discover until after he's married that his newlywed wife isn't a virgin (cf. Deuteronomy 22:14, Matthew 1:19). There's no such pre-marital-sex exception granted to a wife. Also, there's no pre-marital-sex exception granted to a man who marries a divorced woman. If a man marries a woman divorced from a valid husband for any reason, he's committing adultery (Luke 16:18b).

    1 Corinthians 7:15 means a Christian spouse isn't under the bondage of having to keep together a valid marriage to a non-Christian when the non-Christian is determined to get a divorce. But 1 Corinthians 7:15 doesn't mean a Christian wife, after being divorced by a non-Christian, yet valid, husband, can then marry someone else. For if a man marries a woman divorced from a valid husband, he's committing adultery (Luke 16:18b). But the Bible doesn't forbid a man divorced from a valid wife to marry a 2nd, single, woman who isn't divorced from a valid husband, so long as it was his 1st wife (whether a non-Christian or Christian) who divorced him. But then in God's eyes, he will be married to 2 women at the same time (so long as both remain alive), which, while the Bible doesn't require is a sin in itself, because it isn't the best situation, it disqualifies him from taking any leadership positions in the Church (1 Timothy 3:2,12), based on the basic idea of 1 Timothy 3:5.

    The now-abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6) permitted a divorced woman to marry someone else (Deuteronomy 24:2). But if her 2nd marriage ended, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law forbade her to remarry her 1st husband (Deuteronomy 24:4). The New Covenant rules turn this on its head. For now a woman divorced from a valid husband can't marry anyone else (Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18b), but she can remarry her valid husband (1 Corinthians 7:11). It was because the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law permitted a divorced woman to marry someone else, that Jesus Christ, while the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was still in effect, could acknowledge the woman of Samaria's 5 marriages (John 4:18, assuming all 5 didn't end in the death of her husband: cf. Luke 20:29-31). The New Covenant rules forbidding a woman divorced from a valid husband to marry anyone else didn't come into legal effect until Jesus' death on the Cross brought the New Covenant into legal effect (Hebrews 9:16-17, Matthew 26:28) and abolished the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6).

    God never said marriage would be easy. And He has set such strict, New Covenant rules regarding divorce and 2nd marriages (Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:12) that the apostles said it's better not to get married at all (Matthew 19:10). Jesus answered by saying whoever can accept not getting married, and remaining celibate, should accept it (Matthew 19:11-12). The apostle Paul said the same thing, that unmarried celibacy is the best thing for a Christian if he or she can handle it (1 Corinthians 7:1,7-8,32-35). But if someone who hasn't been married can't contain himself or herself sexually, he or she should get married to avoid fornication (1 Corinthians 7:2,9).

    The strict New Covenant rules regarding divorce and 2nd marriages cut both ways, in that if Christians find themselves in a miserable marriage which is an adulterous affair in God's eyes (Mark 10:11-12), they can escape their misery and their unrepentant sin at the same time by divorcing their invalid spouse. But if they find themselves in a very pleasant marriage which is an adulterous affair in God's eyes, they have to be willing to give it up to escape their unrepentant sin, and thereby avoid ultimately losing their salvation due to unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29, Galatians 5:19-21, Luke 12:45-46).

    The only unforgivable sin is blaspheming God's Holy Spirit (Mark 3:28-29), such as ascribing a work of the Holy Spirit to Satan (Mark 3:22-30). Any other sin can be forgiven if it's repented from and confessed to God (1 John 1:9). Just as if Christians find themselves living in the sin of an adulterous affair, they can't continue in that sin, so if they find themselves living in the sin of 2nd marriage adultery (Mark 10:12, Matthew 19:9), they can't continue in that sin (or any other sin) and expect God's grace to forgive them (Hebrews 10:26-29, Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Instead, they must break off with the 2nd, invalid spouse, even if they've had children with the 2nd spouse, just as married people must break off an adulterous affair even if they've had children as a result of that affair.

    After breaking off an adulterous 2nd marriage, a wife must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her 1st, valid husband (1 Corinthians 7:11), if she has one. And if she has one, she can't marry someone else, even if, for example, that would help her and her children to escape poverty. For just as escaping poverty wouldn't justify the wife continuing in the sin of an adulterous affair with a man who financially supports her and her children (or wouldn't justify the sin of her becoming and remaining a well-paid prostitute), so escaping poverty wouldn't justify the sin of her entering into another case of 2nd marriage adultery (Mark 10:12) with a man who financially supports her and her children.

    Romans 3:31 means Christians establish the Old Covenant Mosaic law not in its letter, but in its spirit (Romans 7:6), by loving others (Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14, Matthew 7:12). Part of loving others is warning them if they're living in sin (Revelation 3:19; 2 Thessalonians 3:15, Hebrews 3:13, James 5:19-20). The worst thing a Christian can do is coddle people who are living in sin, instead of sharing with them the hard (yet saving) truths of God's Word the Holy Bible (2 Timothy 4:2-4, cf. Jeremiah 23:14,22,29). Telling the truth to people can sometimes hurt them, but that's better than deceiving them with something which makes them feel good (Proverbs 27:6, Proverbs 28:23). The reason 2nd marriage adultery (or any other sin) is so common in the Church today is because so much of the Church has stopped teaching and believing the hard truths of God's Word (2 Timothy 4:2-4, cf. Jeremiah 23:14,22,29).

    They are one YHWH God (John 10:30, John 1:1,14), but two distinct Persons (Matthew 3:16-17).

    That's right (John 14:9), but compare what 1 John 4:12a says. It and John 1:18a mean no one has ever seen God the Father Himself (John 5:37, John 6:46). But people saw a picture of God the Father when they saw Jesus Christ at His 1st coming. For, as you pointed out, Jesus said: "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). Jesus is the "image" of the invisible God the Father (Colossians 1:15).
     
  3. Bible2+

    Bible2+ Matthew 4:4

    +374
    Christian
    Private
    That means the New Covenant law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), not the Old Covenant law of Moses (John 1:17).

    That's right, but the New Covenant annulled and replaced the Old Covenant (Hebrews 7:18-19).

    That means the New Covenant commandments, not the abolished Old Covenant commandments (Ephesians 2:15).

    *******

    Note that the actual Word of God does show God's approval of all food, under the New Covenant (1 Timothy 4:4-6).
     
  4. Bible2+

    Bible2+ Matthew 4:4

    +374
    Christian
    Private
    That's right.

    And John 6:53-57 shows that all Christians, for their ultimate salvation, must eat the bread of Communion (Matthew 26:26) and drink the wine of Communion (Matthew 26:27-29), which actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 11:27-30) in some spiritual manner (John 6:63).

    That's right.

    And "discerning the Lord's body" (1 Corinthians 11:29) means when Christians partake of Communion (1 Corinthians 11:23-29) they must discern the bread and wine are the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ (John 6:53-56) in some spiritual manner (John 6:63), or they may suffer the consequences (1 Corinthians 11:30).
     
  5. Dig4truth

    Dig4truth Newbie

    563
    +132
    Messianic
    Private

    I'll direct you to RobRyan's excellent post #600. It sums up;

    "Peter is uncertain about the meaning of the vision until the 3 gentiles arrive with their request then instead of concluding "God has shown me that I should call no rat-sandwich unclean" he says but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."

    So yeh, inconvenient truth to some who hold to ignoring the instructions of the Lord.
     
  6. Dig4truth

    Dig4truth Newbie

    563
    +132
    Messianic
    Private


    Sorry, but you are wrong about the Greek words.
    In Mark 10 the Greek word Apuluo (Strongs 630) is used. It means to "send away".
    In Mat 5 the two Greek words that are used are; Apuluo and Apotasion (Strongs 647), which means divorce.
    There are different words for "send away" and "divorce" in the way they are used in Scripture. Mixing them up causes all kinds of confusion.

    If you want to dig deeper, this short video is a great place to learn.

     
  7. Dig4truth

    Dig4truth Newbie

    563
    +132
    Messianic
    Private

    OK, what exactly are "the New Covenant commands of Christ"?
    Did Yeshua come up with different commands from His Father? Did He take away from the Law, did He add to the Law, just exactly what did He do? Can you list them or show us where they are listed?
     
  8. Bible2+

    Bible2+ Matthew 4:4

    +374
    Christian
    Private
    Note that under the New Covenant all foods are clean (Romans 14:14).

    Also, note the "unclean"-Gentile concept of the Old Covenant (Ezra 9:11-14), which was removed under the New Covenant (Acts 10:28) on the Cross of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:11-19).

    *******

    That's right, but in the sense of divorcing one's spouse (cf. Matthew 5:32).

    Note that in the Textus Receptus the same Greek word (apoluo: G0630) is translated as "put away" and "divorced" in Matthew 5:32:

    Matthew 5:32 But <G1161> I <G1473> say <G3004> unto you <G5213>, That <G3754> <whosoever> <G3956> shall put away <G0630> his <G0846> wife <G1135>, saving for <G3924> the <G9999> cause <G3056> of fornication <G4202>, causeth <G4160> her <G0846> <to commit adultery> <G3430>: and <G2532> whosoever <G3739> <G1437> shall marry <G1060> her that is divorced <G0630> committeth adultery <G3429>.

    Regarding the different Greek word (apostasion: G0647) translated as "a writing of divorcement" in Matthew 5:31, someone might ask: "Isn't divorce and remarriage okay if you have a certificate of divorce?"

    That was the case under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 24:1-2), but not under the New Covenant. For now no piece of paper can override the one flesh principle:

    Matthew 19:3 ¶The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
    4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
    5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
    6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
    7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
    8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
    9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

    *******

    Those in the New Testament.

    That is, the Old Covenant was the covenant which God made with ancient Israel under Moses (Exodus 24:8, Deuteronomy 5:3) after Israel's Exodus from Egypt (Jeremiah 31:32). The New Covenant is a different, current covenant which God has made with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31) through Jesus Christ, since His 1st coming in the 1st century AD (Hebrews 12:24, Matthew 26:28).

    The Bible, in English translations, sometimes also calls the New Covenant the New Testament. For the original Greek word "diatheke" (G1242) can be translated into English as either "covenant" (Hebrews 8:8) or "testament" (Hebrews 9:15). So when Christians refer to the 2 main parts of the Bible as the Old Testament and New Testament, what they're really referring to are the 2 parts of the Bible which focus (for the most part) on the Old Covenant and New Covenant.

    Regarding the New Covenant/New Testament being only for Israel (Jeremiah 31:31), all Jews in the Church remain members of whichever tribe of Israel they were born into (Romans 11:1, Acts 4:36). And all Gentiles in the Church have been grafted into Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29) and so have been grafted into its various tribes (cf. Ezekiel 47:21-23).

    The Abrahamic Covenant can be considered as a precursor of the New Covenant, with the Old Covenant (Mosaic law) being an only-temporary covenant between the time of the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant (Galatians 3:6-29).

    The Noahic Covenant, which is still in effect (proven by there still being rainbows), is that God won't flood the earth again (Genesis 9:8-17). But He will eventually burn it (2 Peter 3:10-13).

    The Davidic Covenant (Psalms 89:34-37; 2 Samuel 7:16-29) is still in effect. For Jesus Christ at His future, Second Coming will sit on the throne of David (Luke 1:32-33, Isaiah 9:7).

    The Levitic Covenant is likewise still in effect (Jeremiah 33:20-22) insofar as there are, and always will be, Christian Jews descended from Levi. But they will operate as priests, along with all other obedient Christians (1 Peter 2:9), whether Jews or Gentiles, under the Melchisedechian priesthood of the New Covenant. For the strictly-Levitical priesthood of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was abolished with the letter of that law on the Cross of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:11 to 8:13, Ephesians 2:15-16).

    No, Jesus' commands are the Father's New Covenant commands (John 12:49).

    He abolished the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Ephesians 2:15), and instituted the New Covenant law (Hebrews 9:15).
     
  9. Dig4truth

    Dig4truth Newbie

    563
    +132
    Messianic
    Private

    Then you are saying that Yeshua abolished or changed the instructions of the Father. That is a sin in case you didn't know.





    Matthew 5:32New American Standard Bible (NASB)
    32 but I say to you that everyone who [a]divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a [b]divorced woman commits adultery.

    Footnotes:
    1. Matthew 5:32 Or sends away
    2. Matthew 5:32 Or sent away
    Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 5:32 - New American Standard Bible

    Sorry, but you are wrong.




    Follow along here, why would remarrying be adultery if there is a legitimate divorce? (Which God allowed for) But if there is NO divorce then joining to another spouse would be considered adultery.




    I see, God thought He had it right but someone else had to come along and correct Him.



    (Emphasis mine on your quote)

    Notice the words "put away" and NOT "divorce". See a trend here? If you're "put away" and not "divorced" then you commit adultery if you are with another.




    I see, so the commands in that "old" Covenant are no longer from God and therefore binding. The new and improved God has overridden that "old" stuff. Yeh, that doesn't make sense to me either.



    You do know that the term "old Covenant" is used only once in Scripture, right? Where is the second witness?
    Do you understand what Paul meant by that term?



    Frankly, I have no compunction to be lectured by someone who believes that the instructions of God have been abolished. Hey, they are the instructions of God!

    He even made provisions for us fallen humans including divorce. It's in Scripture, read it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Prayers Prayers x 1
    • List
  10. Bible2+

    Bible2+ Matthew 4:4

    +374
    Christian
    Private
    It isn't a sin because the Father told Jesus what to say (John 12:49).

    Note that it hasn't been shown that the NASB translation is wrong, that the original Greek word (G0630) translated as "divorces" and "divorced" doesn't mean divorce in Matthew 5:32. That is, "sending away" one's spouse means to divorce him or her.

    Because the rules have changed under the New Covenant, based on the "one flesh" principle (Matthew 19:3-9).

    No, He restored His original rule which had been only-temporarily not enforced under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Matthew 19:8).

    The Greek word means divorce in the context of one's spouse.

    They have been disannulled (Hebrews 7:18-19).

    No, the better, New Covenant has overridden the Old Covenant (Hebrews 8:6-7).

    Every time the New Covenant is referred to, it makes the prior covenant Old (Hebrews 8:13).

    He meant the covenant made through Moses (2 Corinthians 3:13-15).

    The Old Covenant instructions were abolished on the New Covenant Cross of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:15-16, Matthew 26:28).

    The Old Covenant law was meant to be just temporary (Galatians 3:19).

    Divorce and remarriage is adultery under the New Covenant (1 Corinthians 7:11, Mark 10:11-12).
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2017
  11. Dig4truth

    Dig4truth Newbie

    563
    +132
    Messianic
    Private
    You are really misunderstanding marriage and remarriage as well as Galations, in my opinion. But I will say this, you are hard core anti-Law!
     
  12. Jipsah

    Jipsah Blood Drinker

    +1,584
    Anglican
    Married
    US-Others
    Zat mean that the Lord wanted Peter to kill and eat the Gentiles? hmmmm...
     
  13. Bible2+

    Bible2+ Matthew 4:4

    +374
    Christian
    Private
    Regarding the book of Galatians, it addresses the problem of Christians mistakenly trying to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25, Galatians 2:11-21).

    Grace sets Christians free from the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 6:14b, John 1:17, Romans 7:6) but not from Jesus Christ's New Covenant law (Galatians 6:2, John 15:10; 1 Corinthians 9:21, Jeremiah 31:31-34, Matthew 26:28), the commandments of which (John 14:15) are those He gave, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29) and in the epistles of the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 14:37). For while Christians are initially saved by grace, by faith only (Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, Romans 4:1-5), and don't have to obey the letter of the commandments of the Old Covenant Mosaic law to obtain ultimate salvation (Galatians 2:16, Romans 7:6), they do have to obey Jesus' New Covenant commandments to obtain ultimate salvation (Hebrews 5:9, Matthew 7:21, Romans 2:6-8).

    It's by Christians obeying Jesus' New Covenant commandments, whether obeying them currently (1 John 3:24) or during the future Tribulation of Matthew 24 and Revelation chapters 6 to 18 (Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 12:17b), that Christians can be sure they're truly loving Jesus (John 14:21-24; 1 John 5:3) and remaining in His love (John 15:10, John 14:21b,23b, Jude 1:21). Christians must fear ultimately losing their salvation, ultimately being cut off the same as non-Christians, if they don't continue in His goodness (Romans 11:20-22, Luke 12:45-46).

    --

    For example, Hebrews 10:26-29 shows that Christians, who have been sanctified by Jesus Christ's sacrificial blood (Hebrews 10:29), which sanctification requires faith (Acts 26:18b, cf. Romans 3:25-26), can, after they get saved, wrongly employ their free will to commit sin without repentance (Hebrews 10:26). By doing this, these Christians are unwittingly trampling on Jesus and His sacrificial blood and doing despite unto the Spirit of grace (Hebrews 10:29), turning the grace of God into lasciviousness (Jude 1:4), so their ultimate fate will be worse than if they'd never been saved at all (2 Peter 2:20-22). Even though Jesus' sacrificial blood is sufficient to forgive all sins (1 John 2:2), it actually forgives only the sins of Christians which are past (Romans 3:25-26), as in sins which have been repented from and confessed to God (1 John 1:9,7). Jesus' sacrificial blood doesn't remit unrepentant sins (Hebrews 10:26-29). So a Christian can ultimately lose his salvation if he wrongly employs his free will to commit unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Luke 12:45-46).

    Some Christians say Hebrews 10:26-29 isn't for Christians. But note the immediate context of Hebrews 10:26-29 is Hebrews 10:25, which is addressing "we" Christians. Hebrews 10:25-29 is the same idea as Hebrews 3:13: Christians need to gather together and exhort each other so no Christian will fall into any unrepentant sin. For any unrepentant sin will ultimately result in the loss of salvation (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Luke 12:45-46, Matthew 7:22-23, Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 2:20-22, Romans 8:13; 1 John 5:16, James 5:19-20).

    One way a Christian could come to desire to commit sin without repentance would be if he finds a particular sin to be very pleasurable, so pleasurable and so fulfilling (in the short term) that he continues in it over time until his heart becomes hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:13), to where his love for God grows cold because of the abundance of iniquity (Matthew 24:12), to where he quenches the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19), to where he sears his conscience as with a hot iron (1 Timothy 4:2), to where he becomes so infatuated with his sin he can no longer endure the sound doctrine of the Bible (such as the doctrine of Hebrews 10:26-29), but instead latches onto a mistaken, man-made teaching which contradicts the Bible (2 Timothy 4:3-4), such as the mistaken teaching which assures Christian there's no way they can ever lose their salvation, even if they sin without repentance.
     
  14. FredVB

    FredVB Regular Member

    +473
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    That is how such is translated in the version you use, from assumptions and beliefs of those involved, it is not translated that way in a number of other versions. So that it is sacrificed meat is not conclusive.
    It is regrettable that there are not other participants in this discussion that would show they can see what is wrong with this statement. I see it needs to be pointed out. The relevance of showing Proverbs 12:10 is not the issue of having meat at all. It is that it is responsibility to you, along with others, with your demands, as that involves you, to know the animals involved for that demand, and there are many, are not experiencing abuse, and avoiding to look into it does not absolve you or any of the responsibility of that with the choices you make. Knowing of the abuse is reason to not continue those same choices. Otherwise there is that cruelty without repentance that this passage speaks to.
    No, that is just wrong. The meaning in Isaiah 11:6-9, and of Isaiah 65 where it is repeated, is not for being reinterpreted with another passage such as that mentioned. Marrow could be how translations show it in what you referenced, but the passage is to be understood as communicating abundance coming for the redeemed that is to be trusted as such, it will be abundance, and it will be glorious. But there won't be any slaughter, this is not how heaven is, there will be no hurt or harm, and there won't be any exceptions when that is in place. Creatures won't hurt each other or people, it won't be left to people to harm them. It is still being neglected that plant-based eating, if it is not with using processed foods, is by far the best for us, studies are already showing this abundantly, this way is Yahweh's perfect will for us, it was in the design for us in the beginning, from when there was no death, as there will be the return to, and was the permission available to humanity for well over a thousand years. All creation is groaning for relief, with hope, and there is to be return to that way, for perfection before Yahweh, that of humanity will only be for the redeemed who come with repentance in Christ to be included in that.

    Animal abuse is a horrible thing and I am against it, as others are, and it is desirable that yet more were against it.
     
  15. LoveofTruth

    LoveofTruth Christ builds His church from within us

    +1,520
    Christian
    They were told by Paul to eat anything the gentiles put before them

    1 Corinthians 10:27
    "If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake."

    and God told peter to slay and eat unclean animals etc

    "13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."(Acts 10:13-15 KJV)
     
  16. Devin P

    Devin P Well-Known Member

    +611
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Is it just his translation?

    If we read the first verse, we see what time God is referring to:

    Zechariah 14:1 - 14 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

    The day of the Lord's coming. This is after the last days when Jesus returns to war against the antichrist and his followers. We can be sure of this by reading verse 3:

    Zechariah 14:3 - 3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

    This is reassured by verse 9 as well:

    Zechariah 14:9 - 9 And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.

    What's my point? Because, God says that He will punish people in that time. When Jesus comes to reign on earth for 1000 years, there will be His chosen (those that are saved) and those that aren't still living in the land. But that if they don't do something, they're will be no rain on their land. What is that something?

    Zechariah 14:16-19 -
    16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

    The highlighted portion is referring to those that aren't in covenant with God, that fought against His people.
    Pay more attention to the underlined portion though, because it deals with the next few verses.

    17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

    Here we see that God says those people not in covenant with Him, will receive no rain and essentially be wiped out for failing to do something... What is that something? In the verse above - verse 16 - we see that what they failed to do (in the end of times, after Jesus comes back) is failing to keep the feast of tabernacles.


    18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
    19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

    I highlighted everything in 18 and 19 because it's all important. God is calling the disobedient ones Egyptian because the coming of Jesus is called the second exodus. In the second exodus, those that are disobedient ate likened unto the Egyptians. My point is, is that not only will they receive no rain, but if they continue again the next year to fail to keep Sukkoth (the feast of tabernacles) they'll be smote even more than no rain.

    What is the feast of tabernacles? In Leviticus 23, God tells us what it is. It's an amazing feast to God, where we take a week and go camp essentially, where we take our tithe money from all year that we saved up, and we get together with family and friends and praise and worship Him, we eat good food, and if we desire, we can drink a bit (not to the point of drunkenness). This is where our tithe is supposed to go. We were supposed to set apart money all year so that when Sukkoth comes, for that week, we can afford to buy whatever our heart desires. Lamb for cooking, cow for cooking, cattle for farming, alcohol, it doesn't matter, whatever you want (so long as it's not breaking God's Torah, and you enjoy yourselves.) A major point of the tithe also, was so that while on Sukkoth, if a less fortunate brother or sister was unable to keepa tithe, or their tithe wasn't sufficient, you can use your tithe to help make sure they're provided for during Sukkoth.

    My point is that, if God's law was done away with, why would in the last days, all people on earth be keeping Sukkoth, a feast that tradition has made us abandon?

    This isn't an issue with my or his translation, this is reflected in the kjv, the niv, the Septuagint, and the Tanakh (the original hebraic texts).
     
  17. Devin P

    Devin P Well-Known Member

    +611
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    That's because according to Jews talmud (although at the time of Paul's letters it was called the book of the law)

    There is a law in it, that says no gentile can prepare food for a jew, otherwise it's not clean. He wasn't saying eat unclean meats, he was saying "look, I know certain people believe that if an unbeliever prepares food that it becomes unclean, but that's untrue".

    This is why talmudic Jews won't eat food they themselves (or other talmudic Jews) didn't prepare even to this day. Or food that's not marked as kosher.
    Even Peter himself said that this was referring to people. Jews at this time had laws where they (according to the book of the law, what we call the talmud today)
    No jew could enter a gentiles home. They couldn't eat with a gentile, and they couldn't befriend a gentile, nor could a gentile enter a Jews home. This is why Peter was given this vision, because had he not received it, he might've not went with them.

    He had the vision three times, and three gentiles came to his home.

    Peter mentions this to them:

    Acts 10:28 - 28And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.29Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?

    Peter brings up that, that was why he agreed to follow them.

    Jesus never taught to eat unclean meats, we have to guard ourselves from things like that.
     
  18. LoveofTruth

    LoveofTruth Christ builds His church from within us

    +1,520
    Christian
    sorry to say but you couldn't be further from the truth
     
  19. Devin P

    Devin P Well-Known Member

    +611
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    In what regard? How so?
     
  20. LoveofTruth

    LoveofTruth Christ builds His church from within us

    +1,520
    Christian
    When Peter was told to slay and eat unclean animals by God God used this as a lesson that he can go to Gentiles and that God had cleansed them as well. The clean and unclean animals under the law ( I am not speaking of the horrific Talmud ) were types of spiritual truths. Just as a spotless lamb was a type of jesus the spotless saviour or the snake was a type of a wise creature as jesus said, or a harmless dove etc. A pig wallowed in the mud and a type of a sinner or a dog returns to his vomit etc. All are types.

    Paul said

    Romans 14:14
    I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

    1 Timothy 4:3
    "Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

    God said to Noah

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


    also in the law they were not to eat unclean animals. Peter is referring to his Mosaic law observance not the Talmud. You have to prove that he was only speaking of the talmud (a horrific book)

    also all the Mosaic law is done away , abolished a ministration of death and condemnation 2 Cor 3. It is only used lawfully today , not for a righteous man, but for sinners etc. The law is not of faith and Paul said that he through the law was dead to the law.


    But I suspect like many who may have the veil on their heart when reading the Old testament they will have many elaborate justifications why all the scriptures i have given do not mean what they mean. I have heard it for years. Just because it takes hours and hours and even days and weeks to wade through all the wrong doctrine and teachings many seem to give up on it and just leave the ones bound up under the law to be bound up there.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2018
Loading...