Regarding the SDA health study, if you don't trust the integrity of the SDA Christian medical professionals, then compare the diets and lifestyles of the longest living people groups in the world with the diet and lifestyle promoted and practised by the SDAs. Look at the Okinawans, the Hunzas, to name a few, and you find that they eat a diet very close to the Genesis diet, namely lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, very little meat, and get lots of exercise in the fresh air, and drink plenty of water, and have the bad habits of smoking and drinking (alcohol) and coffee.
The university in question teaches the Ellen White heresies, I have doubt that anyone believing those heresies can rightfully call themselves a Christian to begin with, so it's not that I doubt Christians. It is actually that I doubt any organization that sets out to justify itself. This is pretty standard in the research field, you have a thrid-party do the research and nudge them in the driection you want them to go, it is even worse when the organization itself does the research. That part is common sense. I have covered the state of health in the US, I don't need to repeat myself on the issue.
Regarding the OT, if it is God breathed then why do you not want to recognize its authority? Don't you realize that is all "the Bible" that the apostles had at the time that they were filled with the Holy Spirit? All that Jesus quoted scores of times from the OT. Now where do the NT writers call the OT a "history book"? In that "history book" is recorded where Jesus wrote Ten Commands in stone, not on paper, but on stone. For a Christian to marginalize such a holy act of God is grieving the Holy Spirit. You mentioned that Jesus kept the law so we don't have to now. May the Lord have mercy on you, if you follow that to its logical conclusion then you could kill, steal, committ adultery, break the Sabbath, and it would not be sin. That goes against the whole example of the life of Christ and the teachings of the apostles and the examples of countless Christians through the ages.
If we did nothing but follow Christ's words we would not kill, steal, commit adultery et al. He said the love your nieghbor as yourself, and that love is defined in 1 Corinthians. So your argument is moot when compared to Christ's words. I do not teach any sort of relativism but rather grace and freedom from the law.
Regarding Matthew 7: 18-20, the issue is what was Jesus really addressing? He couldn't have been saying if you eat pork or some other unclean food that it won't defile you because, Jesus is the one who told Moses that it would defile you. Therefore Jesus must have been talking about the fact that eating Biblically clean food without washing your hands could not defile, but evil thoughts would. To apply Jesus' otherwise would make Him contradict himself.
Again, He stated that NOTHING that goes into a man's mouth can defile him, He did not state that not washing your hands before you eat couyld not defile you. He could have stated that in private with the disciples, but he did not, he re-itirated that NOTHING that goes into a man's mouth can defile him. Much like the disciples you need to LISTEN and UNDERSTAND. He said NOTHING and meant NOTHING. You are the one adding context to this verse. I am taking my personal Saviour at His word. I wish that you could do the same. I fully believe that when he said nothing he meant nothing. You are simply repeating yourself using different words, but no matter how many words you use you cannot change the basic fact that He said NOTHING, and well it means NOTHING. How can NOTHING mean just this one thing? This is horrible exegesis.
Regarding the drinking of alcohol and smoking I'm amazed that you would go so far and try to justify the practise of these terrible products of the devil that have destroyed billions of souls since there inception. I Cor. 10:31 says "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (ESV) Even one drink of alcohol effects the brains judgement, the frontal lobes, where we make moral judgements. Jesus spit out the fermented gall that was given to him, when he was on he cross, so that his mind would not be clouded at the critical moment. And nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs that is not outlawed. I ask you, if we are as the Bible says "temple of the Holy Spirit", would you want to put a cigarette in the mouth of Jesus, or give hime a drind of fermented wine? I don't think so!
While I doubt Christ would smoke he did drink fermented wine. He not only made wine, but he made the best wine they had ever tasted. The wine used on the night of passover that the Last Supper was held on would have been fermented wine. In light of his miracle with the wine I would not give him a cheap wine but make sure it was the best I could acquire and then you had better believe I would serve it. What he was given on the cross was vinegar and not wine. It was wine that gone bad, that example is a completely out of context assertion and just goes to prove you try and force scripture into your box instead of the other way around.
1. Do you eat cheeseburgers? No. Vegetarian.
2. Do you cut meat and cheese with the same knife? No. Vegetarian.
3. Do you cook meat and dairy in the same pan? No. Vegetarian.
4. Do you insure that the grocery stores you go to store their meat and dairy seperately? Doesn't matter to me, I don't use the dairy or the meats. Although it is a good idea.
So you really have another agenda and that is the ceasing of all meat eating. This is apparent by even more of your comments and by no means Biblical. Thanks for playing you just totally ruined any credibility you might have held.
5. Do you drive on the Sabbath? Yes. My car is not a person. And it doesn't compel anyone to have to work on the Sabbath, except for law enforement, which are ministers of justice in our sinful world.
But by driving your car you are starting a fire, at idle in a 6 cylinder, about 6000 fires per minute. You aren't even supposed to leave your house on the Sabbath according to the book of Exodous. You are not following the law, just what you want to follow.
6. Do you have tassles on your clothes? No. I'm not a Jew, and some of guidelines regading clothing were pertainent to the climate and culture of the time. I wear a conservative suit and tie.
Oh so certain parts of the law are for Jews only? That makes no sense according to what you have said. If we are to follow the law then we should follow all of it. You are either in or out there is no partial law. Either the law was nailed to the cross or it wasn't.
7. Do you have a full beard with the corners never trimmed? No. I don't sculpture my beard or hair line thought like the pagans of Egypt or Babylon.
Wonderful, you are commanded to never trim the corners of your beard in the law that you so gleefully would have us all under. Once again it's either all or nothing. You cannot show me in the Bible the deliniation that you claim exists, it's just not there.
8. Do you not tough your wife when she is having her period, and this means touching and not sex? I touch her, but don't have sex. We have running water and toilets, showers, and a washing machine and dryer in our house. Which greatly enhances the sanitary issue that the Israelite faced living in tents in the desert, without running water, showers, toilets, and washing machines.
Since when does running water negate the law? Running water has nothing to do with the law. Either follow it or don't. You can't follow part without being under all of it, Paul is very clear on that.
9. Do you wear mixed fabric clothes? Yes. Lev. 19:19 doesn't explain the reason for this, nor is it explained anywhere else in the the Bible, only from the context can one glean an insight that maybe it had to do with the mixing of the different types of God's unique creations.
It doesn't matter WHY it was stated (although I can tell you), it only matters that it was stated. You are either following it or you are not.
10. Have you threatened to stone your children for bein rebellious? No. A rebellious youth was brought before the elders to pass judgement of the individual. Remember, Israel was a theocracy, and Moses and Aaron were directly guided by God in there judgements when dealing with serious issues.
This is not an optional part of the law but a direct command. If your child will not stop being rebellious you are to take him to be stoned. It is not to be judged, he is to be taken to the gates of the city, a statement made and then stoned by the town. This is also not optional.
It may have seemed childish, but it goes a long way to prove your agenda and the fact that you only keep the laws you want to keep. You do not keep the law and will try to argue that there are parts of it we don't have to keep but there is no scripture to back you up on that. This is probably why Symes wouldn't answer, there is no answer that Biblically backs the postion of only keeping some of the laws.
You seem to pride yourself on being able to cast doubt on the most plain statements of Scripture encouraging us to holiness of mind, body, and spirit. If you and I went over to Africa to two different villages of savages that practised all kinds of evil addictions and lived in filth; and we both preached Jesus, and then they all accepted Him as their Saviour. If you would teach them what you have shared with me as far as the OT goes, and the NT as well, you have to condone there evil habits and say that they didn't need to change because they were not under the law anymore, while I would continue to instruct them on the Biblical principles of health, civil law, sanitation, etc. Which village do you think would experience the most positive change in the long run. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
First off I would teach sanitization and proper food preperation, cleanliness and hygine. I would teach it for the good of the people and not as sin. I would teach them to accept Christ's grace and to love their fellow man as Christ has loved us and the definition of love in 1 Corinthians. I would end up with a healthy village that showed love for all those around them. You seem to think that teaching common sense is not found in what I say but it is. You are the one dragging crucified principles into the world and negating Christ's work for you.
I have not skirted the issue, simply stated that I would not hijack the thread to prove you wrong on yet another scripture. I think that anyone readint his can see you have been wrong on most of the rest of the scripture and they don't need another example.
