Eating pork and shellfish is a grave sin.

[clinzey]

Actually this has been mentioned many times but has been buried in the thread, also has been mentioned many times on the old eating pork is sin thread, use flesh 99 find all posts and you will see he is the one who has used these verses many times including explaining the the Greek used in the verses.

I've read the verses from my own Greek NT. I understand them - what I don't understand is why people choose to skip over them and argue for moot OT food restrictions.

 

[deu58]

I've read the verses from my own Greek NT. I understand them - what I don't understand is why people choose to skip over them and argue for moot OT food restrictions.

Hi clinzy

There are a whole bunch of us wondering the very same thing

yours in Christ
deu58

 

[theFijian]

And don't forget to mention touching lepers.



May I direct everyone to Jesus' words in Mark 7:18-19. "Are you so dull? Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." In saying this he declared all foods clean.


If Jesus doesn't settle it, who does? How can you still claim to hold to OT food laws?

And of course, he touched lepers as you say. Also in Galatians 2, Paul says that Titus was not constrained to be circumcised as he was Greek. Now if Paul did not even contrain Titus to be circumcised it is highly doubtful he made him keep the strict dietry laws.

cheers,

Andy

 

[Symes]

Fijian

And of course, he touched lepers as you say. Also in Galatians 2, Paul says that Titus was not constrained to be circumcised as he was Greek. Now if Paul did not even contrain Titus to be circumcised it is highly doubtful he made him keep the strict dietry laws.

cheers,

Andy

Now the conclusions you have drawn are from a human perspective and not from what God says. While you have indeed quoted Scripture, it is your interpretation of those verses that have got you into trouble.

Just try and imagine Jesus telling the Jews they can eat unclean food. What do you think their reaction would be? he would face the firing squad before sunset. The Jews did not start to eat unclean because of what Jesus said. They did not then and do not now. They did not understand it to mean they could eat it.

 

[leecappella]

Fijian


Now the conclusions you have drawn are from a human perspective and not from what God says. While you have indeed quoted Scripture, it is your interpretation of those verses that have got you into trouble.

Just try and imagine Jesus telling the Jews they can eat unclean food. What do you think their reaction would be? he would face the firing squad before sunset. The Jews did not start to eat unclean because of what Jesus said. They did not then and do not now. They did not understand it to mean they could eat it.

me: In case you are not aware, your interpretations of the bible are your human conclusions just as is anyone else's. Even further, Jesus was Jesus. If He said that eating unclean foods was okay and the Jews didn't like it, it's their problem. This is Jesus who is speaking. If He says it's okay, it's okay regardless of how the Jews or anyone else reacts to what Jesus said! It just means that the Law has been placed above Christ, which is not a good thing.

 

[theFijian]

Fijian


Now the conclusions you have drawn are from a human perspective and not from what God says. While you have indeed quoted Scripture, it is your interpretation of those verses that have got you into trouble.

Just try and imagine Jesus telling the Jews they can eat unclean food. What do you think their reaction would be? he would face the firing squad before sunset. The Jews did not start to eat unclean because of what Jesus said. They did not then and do not now. They did not understand it to mean they could eat it.

Symes,
Thank you for your reply, can I pick you up on one thing though. Why were the Jews not allowed to eat pork + shellfish? Because it would make them unclean of course. Why then did Jesus do things (on a plain reading of scripture, no interpretation is needed unless plain English is a problem for you) like touch lepers, dead bodies etc which would have made him, as a Rabbbi, UNCLEAN?

cheers,

Andy

 

[clinzey]

Jesus was Jesus. If He said that eating unclean foods was okay and the Jews didn't like it, it's their problem. This is Jesus who is speaking. If He says it's okay, it's okay regardless of how the Jews or anyone else reacts to what Jesus said! It just means that the Law has been placed above Christ, which is not a good thing.

I'm going to have to agree with this post. If Jesus doesn't settle it for you, who does?

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Fijian


Now the conclusions you have drawn are from a human perspective and not from what God says. While you have indeed quoted Scripture, it is your interpretation of those verses that have got you into trouble.

Just try and imagine Jesus telling the Jews they can eat unclean food. What do you think their reaction would be? he would face the firing squad before sunset. The Jews did not start to eat unclean because of what Jesus said. They did not then and do not now. They did not understand it to mean they could eat it.

Symes, again no matter what color you make your text or how big you make it, it doesn't make it true. The simple fact is that it did hack off the pharisees. Read what it says about the disciples, they were afraid. Jesus did not calm their fears by telling them "Oh I only meant washing your hands"! He stated the same thing again. Even Mark states "(Thus cleansing all foods). They tried to stone Jesus, discredit Him, and evenutally they convinced the Romans to crucify Him. If he was not doing things that upset them then they would have not done these things. Yes it upset them that he said all foods were clean, of course it did. But your conjecture is wrong, that was not a stonable offense. When He claimed to be God then they tried to stone Him. Your proofs are conjecture and the conclusions you come to show that you have not studied the life of Christ as you would know that many things he did and said made the pharisees mad. He even told them the Mosaic law on divorce was wrong, flat out.

 

[Symes]

flesh99

Why don't you use some correct texts to prove me wrong and not go on and on about nothing.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Symes: We have proven you wrong over and over and over again. Lets sum up:

1. Christ said that what goes into a man's mouth cannot defile him
a. If you say that pork can defile us you are contradicting the direct word's of Christ
b. If you say that he didn't mean that then you miss where he re-states it to the disciples so they will understand that he meant what he said
c. If you agree with it your entire doctrine if wrong

2. There were no food laws prior to the giving of the Mosaic Law
a. If you disgaree you must be reading a different Bible because there were none given.
b. If you agree then you are putting yourself under the Law and Paul states you will be held accountable for every point.

3. Peter's vision had two meanings, evidenced by the fact he went to eat with Cornelious, who was a Gentile and would not have kept kosher.
a. If you disagree then you must explain how Peter could justify eating food that was not kosher according to the law
b. If you agree your doctrine if false

4. 1 Timothy states plainly that all creatures God created are good and nothing is to be refused if accepted with thanksgiving and prayer because prayer snactifies our food.
a. If you disagree then you must believe God did not create some of the creatures
b. If you think that it does not include all creatures then you deny the scripture is true.
c. If you think that prayer cannot sanctify our food then you deny the scripture again.
d. If you admit that the scripture means what it plainly says then your doctrine is false.

From those points alone it is easily shown that you either disagree with scripture or have to admit your doctrine is not based in scripture and therefore false. You know we are not under the law, and the food laws are part of that as well. You make this very claim when you state the ten commandments were not nailed to the cross, the rest of the law was. Either you don't believe that statement or are lying about it because the only food laws are contained in the part of the law you claim was nailed to the cross.

Your statement that God would not change the designations on food because He does not change is false as well. Look at the different covenants, God does not change but He changes how He deals with us and what He requires of us. Your statement is false futhermore by the fact that Gentiles are to be included in the Gospel whereas before they were unclean. You are teaching doctrine that does not line up with scripture and the way you present it does not even line up with itself. We have proven this over and over and over again. It is plain for anyone to see at this point.

 

[clinzey]

Why don't you use some correct texts to prove me wrong and not go on and on about nothing.

You don't view the words of Jesus from Mark 7 to be "correct text"?

 

[Andre]

Ohh so milk is bad stuff for us now? pleeeease...
So why would God promisse "a land flowing with milk and honey" to the Jews, so they can get sick and die faster? I don't think so.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

**** mod hat on ****This thread, like the other, has really run it's course. Is anyone getting anything out of this? I suggest everyone put in a final argument to summerize your point of view. I am going to close it at in 1 1/2 hours.