Eating Pork

[JoabAnias]

The old was made obsolete and was abbrogated.

Not abrogated sister. Fulfilled. There is a difference. Check the CCC which I think explains.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Let's continue - "READY TO VANISH AWAY"

READY

Lexicon Results
Strong's G1451 - eggys
ἐγγύς
Transliteration

eggys

Pronunciation

en-gü's (Key)

Part of Speech adverb
​

Hi tlc. That form of the greek word "nigh" is also used in Reve 1:3 and 22:10. I believe all of revelation was "fulfilled" on OC "judah/israel" and their Priesthood. Thoughts?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Hebrews 8:13 in the to be saying `New,' He hath made Old/pepalaiwken <3822> (5758) the first. The yet being aged/palaioumenon <3822> (5746) and being obsolete/ghraskon <1095> (5723) NIGH/egguV <1451> of disappearance/afanismou <854>

Reve 1:3 Happy the one reading and the ones hearing the Words of the Prophecy and keepings in it having been Written for the Time NIGH/egguV <1451>. [Reve 22:10]

Revelation 22:10 And he is saying to me "no thou should be sealing the Words of the Prophecy of the Scroll, this, that the Time NIGH/egguV <1451> is" [Reve 1:3]

1451. eggus eng-goos' from a primary verb agcho (to squeeze or throttle; akin to the base of 43); near (literally or figuratively, of place or time):--from , at hand, near, nigh (at hand, unto), ready. [Used 30 times in 30 verses 2 times in Revelation.

 

[Crankitup]

Yes it is.

As I've already explained a couple of times now, it wasn't for me.

Chronology my friend . . . they had not yet been led into that truth . . . the leading into that truth started with that event in Acts. The Gospels were written way after that.

(1) I don't think you are saying that Acts was written before the gospels, but just in case you are, the book of Acts couldn't have been written after all the gospels. At the very least it had to be written after the book of Luke.

(2) It doesn't matter WHEN the gospels were written because it's the EVENT in Mark that occurs before the EVENT in Acts.

(3) Are you insinuating that Paul was a better teacher than Jesus? I'd much prefer to see it as you reading something into Jesus' statement that wasn't there rather than that.

 

[thereselittleflower]

As I've already explained a couple of times now, it wasn't for me.

Well, maybe you need a different translation?

(1) I don't think you are saying that Acts was written before the gospels, but just in case you are, the book of Acts couldn't have been written after all the gospels. At the very least it had to be written after the book of Luke.

I was saying that the gospels were written after this understanding was revealed by the Holy Spirit, and so this elaborated on by the author.

(2) It doesn't matter WHEN the gospels were written because it's the EVENT in Mark that occurs before the EVENT in Acts.

You are missing the point . . . it was written AFTER this understanding was revealed by the Holy Spirt and so the writer was commenting on this revealed understanding of Jesus' words.

(3) Are you insinuating that Paul was a better teacher than Jesus? I'd much prefer to see it as you reading something into Jesus' statement that wasn't there rather than that.

So you are you saying the writers of scripture got what Jesus meant wrong?

Paul had the full revelation Jesus wanted to impart, but couldn't, as Jesus
Himself said needed to happen after He returned to heaven.

So, Paul and the apostles did teach the full revelation which Jesus only gave a part of.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Not abrogated sister. Fulfilled. There is a difference. Check the CCC which I think explains.

And once fufilled, it was cancelled, abrogated.

There is not a contradiction here . . the scripture does not contradict Church teaches.

 

[Crankitup]

huh? This is the place for those who are seeking information about Catholicism to receive it, not to debate it with us . . .

Maybe you missed posts 98, 101 & 103??

My comment in this thread that seems to have sparked debate was that Acts 10 is teaching something a lot more important that not to eat pork, which it quite clearly is. People then moderated their position to say, "Yes, but..."

That's where the debating has started and still continues, since I disagree that Acts 10 is teaching their moderated position AT ALL. (edited for clarity, and because I promised this would be my last post in this thread).

So why do you think Paul taught we should eat everything found in the market place (which included all manner of meats and foods offered to the idols, including pork and other animals forbidden to the jews)?

Actually, I have been thinking about another instance where Paul contradicts James, and then later Jesus (in Revelation 2:14 and 2:20) about eating meat sacrificed to idols. It's an interesting study.

I have just opened a thread on it and below is a link to it;

Food Sacrificed to Idols - Who Was Right? James or Paul?

In that thread I promise not to shut down anyone's views with implied threats of reporting them for debating, like I feel has happened here.

And with that in mind, this is my last post in this thread.

If you still have a problem with anything I've said here, all I ask is that you read through Matthew 18 and send me a PM in obedience to it before mashing the report button.

EDIT: I see you've responded to the other post I made a few minutes before this one (#123). You have completely missed the point I was making. PM me if you want to know why, or take it up with me in the other thread, because it would still be within the realms of the topic of that thread. Also I will make the point that although I joined up here in 2006, I did so to ask only one question. From 2006 until a couple of months ago, I visited on only a handful of occasions, so you will have to forgive my ignorance in some respects about how the site operates. For instance I've only just realised what the 'S' next to JoabAnias' avatar means - Supermod. With that in mind I think he has conducted his discussion with me with a lot of grace. (Another later edit).

 

[JoabAnias]

My comment in this thread that seems to have sparked debate was that Acts 10 is teaching something a lot more important that not to eat pork, which it quite clearly is. People then moderated their position to say, "Yes, but..." That's where the debating has started and still continues.

No that wasn't the case at all. You said it had nothing to do with four footed animals at all and those animals mentioned was referring to gentiles and not all foods because Peter refers to gentiles later on which was wrong and you were shown otherwise.

If you contend the point about the gentiles is more important than the point about the new covenant then that is a different matter and I don't know what purpose such an argument would serve.

Good to see you've conceded the point now. I know it wasn't easy. Don't be a stranger. Fellowship and discussion are quite different than debate.

 

[JoabAnias]

And once fufilled, it was cancelled, abrogated.

There is not a contradiction here . . the scripture does not contradict Church teaches.

Sorry NOT abrogated. The old laws are not abrogated but fulfilled. Again, there is a difference. Its a nuance but very important.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Sorry NOT abrogated. The old laws are not abrogated but fulfilled. Again, there is a difference. Its a nuance but very important.

Perhaps tlf was thinking about Coloss 2:14?

Coloss 2:14 Out-rubbing/exaleiyaV <1813> the down of us handwriting to the decrees/dogmasin <1378> which was hostile to us, and it has lifted/taken-up/hrken <142> (5758) out of the midst, toward-nailing it to the stauros