For me, it's either theistic evolution or nothing.

[Willtor]

Great post.....but the topic of the "law" is huge.

The intent of my post was to show Hoghead something about the law after his post where in post 56 He said "For example, do you follow all the OT laws? Do you avoid eating pork"?

13 Then a voice spoke to him: “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” 14 “No, Lord! Peter answered, “- I have never eatenanything impure or unclean.” 15 The voice spoke to him a second time: “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

Hoghead seems to read his bible....I wonder what his position is on pork. I wonder why he even asked me that question.

It relates to prohibitions against homosexuality. Consider the following approaches to pork, since there's a clear contrary reference in the NT:

1. Ignore the OT law.
2. Directly apply OT Law unless there is a contrary reference in the NT.
3. Try to understand why pork had been prohibited in the law and what had changed.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my reading is that Hoghead1 supports approach 1, while you support approach 2. I'm advocating for approach 3. Both for this and for any law or rule mentioned in OT or in NT.

 

[-57]

It relates to prohibitions against homosexuality. Consider the following approaches to pork, since there's a clear contrary reference in the NT:

1. Ignore the OT law.
2. Directly apply OT Law unless there is a contrary reference in the NT.
3. Try to understand why pork had been prohibited in the law and what had changed.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my reading is that Hoghead1 supports approach 1, while you support approach 2. I'm advocating for approach 3. Both for this and for any law or rule mentioned in OT or in NT.

I can see your point. But Acts seems to answer it "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

Concerning the items on the blanket...How did God make them clean?

 

[Willtor]

I can see your point. But Acts seems to answer it "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

Concerning the items on the blanket...How did God make them clean?

The cleanness of the animals was symbolic of the Gentiles. They had been cleaned through Christ. The interesting point here is that so had the Jews. Nobody was truly clean but through Christ.

This begs the question: why had pork been "unclean" in the first place?

 

[-57]

The cleanness of the animals was symbolic of the Gentiles. They had been cleaned through Christ. The interesting point here is that so had the Jews. Nobody was truly clean but through Christ.

This begs the question: why had pork been "unclean" in the first place?

I never really studied the issue of why God considered some animals as clean and others as unclean. If you want to go there, tells us.

But I do know a piece of bacon wrapped around a lobster tail is delicious.

 

[Willtor]

I never really studied the issue of why God considered some animals as clean and others as unclean. If you want to go there, tells us.

Pigs were unclean in much of the ancient Middle East -- not just in Israel. But never in Europe. The big difference is the food they ate: In Europe, piglets were released into the forests and ate acorns and roots and other things that people couldn't eat. And when they grew up, they were meat. In the Middle East, pigs ate grains and vegetables -- people food. Eating pork in the OT was a privilege food that made basic foods more expensive in an environment where those resources were already few. It was taking food out of the mouths of the poor.

By the time of the NT, the whole Mediterranean was connected and it wasn't a shortage of grain that made people hungry. It could even be imported from Europe more cheaply than it could be raised locally. Pork had become unclean because its uncleanness was axiomatic as a way to keep the Jews separate from the Gentiles, not because it hurt anybody.

But I do know a piece of bacon wrapped around a lobster tail is delicious.

That's a recipe for joy.

 

[-57]

Pigs were unclean in much of the ancient Middle East -- not just in Israel. But never in Europe. The big difference is the food they ate: In Europe, piglets were released into the forests and ate acorns and roots and other things that people couldn't eat. And when they grew up, they were meat. In the Middle East, pigs ate grains and vegetables -- people food. Eating pork in the OT was a privilege food that made basic foods more expensive in an environment where those resources were already few. It was taking food out of the mouths of the poor.

By the time of the NT, the whole Mediterranean was connected and it wasn't a shortage of grain that made people hungry. It could even be imported from Europe more cheaply than it could be raised locally. Pork had become unclean because its uncleanness was axiomatic as a way to keep the Jews separate from the Gentiles, not because it hurt anybody.



That's a recipe for joy.

I think this might answer it..you said: a way to keep the Jews separate from the Gentiles.

 

[Willtor]

I think this might answer it..you said: a way to keep the Jews separate from the Gentiles.

That's what it was doing in the time of the NT. But when it was written, it didn't. It made them the same as some of their neighbors.

 

[freezerman2000]

If the prohibition against pork was laid down during the Exodus,it could well be that one factor was the time involved cooking it.A whole pig involves at least an hour and 10 minutes per 10 pounds. http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/06/how-to-roast-a-pig-on-a-spit.html
Under cooked pork can lead to devastating health issues,something a population on the move could not well afford..treating entire segments of the group.Medically,it would have been hard to impossible to cure anyone of trichinosis.
Just my two cents worth.

 

[Hoghead1]

Great post.....but the topic of the "law" is huge.

The intent of my post was to show Hoghead something about the law after his post where in post 56 He said "For example, do you follow all the OT laws? Do you avoid eating pork"?

13 Then a voice spoke to him: “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” 14 “No, Lord! Peter answered, “- I have never eatenanything impure or unclean.” 15 The voice spoke to him a second time: “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

Hoghead seems to read his bible....I wonder what his position is on pork. I wonder why he even asked me that question.

I eat pork, yes. I believe the NT throws out all the OT laws. I definitely do not think they were all dictated by God, not when the OT condones slavery.

 

[-57]

I eat pork, yes. I believe the NT throws out all the OT laws. I definitely do not think they were all dictated by God, not when the OT condones slavery.

The OT doesn't condone "slavery". If it does condone slavery...show me a verse where the bible says slavery is a good thing.

 

[Willtor]

If the prohibition against pork was laid down during the Exodus,it could well be that one factor was the time involved cooking it.A whole pig involves at least an hour and 10 minutes per 10 pounds. http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/06/how-to-roast-a-pig-on-a-spit.html
Under cooked pork can lead to devastating health issues,something a population on the move could not well afford..treating entire segments of the group.Medically,it would have been hard to impossible to cure anyone of trichinosis.
Just my two cents worth.

This is a good idea. But it should be surprising, then, that the prohibitions are so common in the Middle East and entirely unheard of in Europe. In Europe, they knew... just cook pork for a long time. Since some societies in the Middle East raised pigs, they doubtless knew this, too.

 

[Hoghead1]

The OT doesn't condone "slavery". If it does condone slavery...show me a verse where the bible says slavery is a good thing.

That's easy. Try Exod. 21.

 

[Hoghead1]

For someone who said... "I am well aware of that passage."... expressing biblical knowledge through the statement...you seem to be falling short on understanding the reasons for Christ. Didn't Christ come and fulfill the law? Why a man of such knowledge would use the language of "Christ throws all the "laws of Moses" right out the window"....makes me wonder.

Absolutely, yes. That' why Paul went to the circumscribed. That's why Peter had the vision of the table cloth coming down from heaven. The old dietary laws are all off, kaput. That's why Christ says, "you have heard it said, but I say unto you."

 

[-57]

That's easy. Try Exod. 21.

You do know that the concept of slavery here is towards a person who was in debt and couldn't pay it off. It's not the slavery they taught you about in history class.

 

[Hoghead1]

You do know that the concept of slavery here is towards a person who was in debt and couldn't pay it off. It's not the slavery they taught you about in history class.

That is not at all what the Bible says. Yes, it is the same slavery. Vs.1 says, "When you purchase a Hebrew as a slave." Vs. 7 says, "When a man sells his daughter into slavery, she is not to go free." Actually, it is worse here than slavery in the Old South, as no one in the South would think of selling their daughter into slavery. Vs. 20 says >When a man strikes his slave or his slave-girl with a stick and the slave dies on the spot, he must be punished. Vs. 21 continues, " Bu the is not to be punished if the slave survives for one day or two." OK, in the Old South, you could kill slaves. Vs. 26 says, When a man strikes his slave or slave-girl in the eye and destroys it, he must let the slave go free in compensation for the eye." Nice compassionate touch, don't your think? Wonder what happens if you just break a leg. There are loads of ways of beating a person without knocking out their eyes or killing them. Slavery is slavery. The fact that the ancient Hebrews maybe had a few more restraints on it than the Old South does not make it any better.

 

[-57]

That is not at all what the Bible says. Yes, it is the same slavery. Vs.1 says, "When you purchase a Hebrew as a slave." Vs. 7 says, "When a man sells his daughter into slavery, she is not to go free." Actually, it is worse here than slavery in the Old South, as no one in the South would think of selling their daughter into slavery. Vs. 20 says >When a man strikes his slave or his slave-girl with a stick and the slave dies on the spot, he must be punished. Vs. 21 continues, " Bu the is not to be punished if the slave survives for one day or two." OK, in the Old South, you could kill slaves. Vs. 26 says, When a man strikes his slave or slave-girl in the eye and destroys it, he must let the slave go free in compensation for the eye." Nice compassionate touch, don't your think? Wonder what happens if you just break a leg. There are loads of ways of beating a person without knocking out their eyes or killing them. Slavery is slavery. The fact that the ancient Hebrews maybe had a few more restraints on it than the Old South does not make it any better.

I'm not really goint to argue the point with you. Perhaps you ought to beef up on "indentured servants".

2nd Kings 4:1 Now the wife of one of the sons of the prophets cried to Elisha, “Your servant my husband is dead, and you know that your servant feared the LORD, but the creditor has come to take my two children to be his slaves.”

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm not really goint to argue the point with you. Perhaps you ought to beef up on "indentured servants".

2nd Kings 4:1 Now the wife of one of the sons of the prophets cried to Elisha, “Your servant my husband is dead, and you know that your servant feared the LORD, but the creditor has come to take my two children to be his slaves.”

Perhaps you better read up on indentured servants. For all practical purposes that was slavery. No doubt about it. Also, the passage in Kings you cited simply states that another reason for slavery was unpaid debts. Taking away tow children to be slaves is still slavery, regardless of the reasons.

 

[theFijian]

The slavery in OT was not the same as what we associate with the 17th century transatlantic slave trade, those slaves had almost no rights whatsoever. Anyone familiar with the OT descriptions will be able to see that.

 

[theFijian]

Pigs were unclean in much of the ancient Middle East -- not just in Israel. But never in Europe. The big difference is the food they ate: In Europe, piglets were released into the forests and ate acorns and roots and other things that people couldn't eat. And when they grew up, they were meat. In the Middle East, pigs ate grains and vegetables -- people food. Eating pork in the OT was a privilege food that made basic foods more expensive in an environment where those resources were already few. It was taking food out of the mouths of the poor.

By the time of the NT, the whole Mediterranean was connected and it wasn't a shortage of grain that made people hungry. It could even be imported from Europe more cheaply than it could be raised locally. Pork had become unclean because its uncleanness was axiomatic as a way to keep the Jews separate from the Gentiles, not because it hurt anybody.

I had surmised that pigs, shellfish, carrion birds were unclean because they were scavengers. Don't know where that theory leaves rabbits and ostriches though

 

[pat34lee]

.