Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is acnadoctal and doesn't engage the point. There still is no "health laws" in the bible. I don't eat pork either, because what I please is to love my neighbours and since eating pork is an issue for them I'll abstain so that I may have continued engagement. My motivation is not law driven, it is mission driven.Swine are very unclean animals and their meat is very diseased. Some of the parasites in them cannot be killed without destroying the meat, I'll stick with God. You do as you please.
Physical rest is an example of spiritual rest, so one is not greater than the other. There is no point where spiritual rest will lead us away from taking physical actions that are examples of it, so one can't be done at the cost of the other. It is not better to seek one over the other.Or put another way is physical rest inferior to spiritual rest.
Holistic health is important and I'm not trying to say the body doesn't need physical rest or that routine physical rest is not a healthy focus. Physical rest is important but my question is if spiritual rest is of greater importance?
Given a choice would you deny spiritual rest with the reward of physical rest, or would you deny physical rest with the reward of spiritual rest?
Spiritual rest is salvation through Christ and denying that rest is tantamount to denying Chirst. So put another way would you deny Christ (spiritual rest) with the reward of your life (physical rest) or would you deny your life with the reward of Christ?
what does this show us about the role of spiritual rest and physical rest? Which is better to seek? Which is better to show our neighbour while at the cost of the other rest?
So the laws given by God are now "anecdotal"? How do you come up with that? God wasn't really serious when He told the Israelites what they could and couldn't eat?This is acnadoctal and doesn't engage the point. There still is no "health laws" in the bible. I don't eat pork either, because what I please is to love my neighbours and since eating pork is an issue for them I'll abstain so that I may have continued engagement. My motivation is not law driven, it is mission driven.
This is perhaps too ambiguous and it needs to be fleshed out more. Are you suggesting physical rest and spiritual rest are the same thing? or may spiritual rest exist separate from physical rest? For example on the cross did Christ have spiritual rest despite his physical distress? What about the guy next to him? Would you still call this physical response while in distress a product of spiritual rest thus still an example of physical rest?Physical rest is an example of spiritual rest, so one is not greater than the other. There is no point where spiritual rest will lead us away from taking physical actions that are examples of it, so one can't be done at the cost of the other. It is not better to seek one over the other.
your extra-biblical account of pigs is anecdotal. You are implying the biblical motivation for not eating pork is because "[swine's] meat is very diseased". the bible says not to eat pork because it is a part of a unclean list of animals that are forbidden to eat under the system of the old covenant, but it doesn't give us this elaborate health goal as to its motivation that you have superimposed over the text anecdotally. God told Peter "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean" In the context was swine an example of that which was made clean? In light of this information what then is the meaning of clean/unclean? If physical it would produce a remark like "Swine are very unclean animals and their meat is very diseased" but if spiritual it would motivate us to reach all people groups of the world for Christ regardless of their predispositions.So the laws given by God are now "anecdotal"? How do you come up with that? God wasn't really serious when He told the Israelites what they could and couldn't eat?
Oh, so your claim is God's laws have no basis in practical usage. We shouldn't commit adultery. not because it causes pain and heartache in people's lives, but just because God says so. In other words, God's laws are arbitrary decrees on His part. He's not just. He's a tyrant.your extra-biblical account of pigs is anecdotal. You are implying the biblical motivation for not eating pork is because "[swine's] meat is very diseased". the bible says not to eat pork because it is a part of a unclean list of animals that are forbidden to eat under the system of the old covenant, but it doesn't give us this elaborate health goal as to its motivation that you have superimposed over the text anecdotally. God told Peter "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean" In the context was swine an example of that which was made clean? In light of this information what then is the meaning of clean/unclean? If physical it would produce a remark like "Swine are very unclean animals and their meat is very diseased" but if spiritual it would motivate us to reach all people groups of the world for Christ regardless of their predispositions.
If someone knew nothing about righteousness and were given 100 examples of what it means to physically practice righteousness in various situations, then they might be able to extrapolate an overarching spiritual principle of righteousness that all of the examples are instances of, which could lead them to know how to practice righteousness even in situations that are not one of the 100 examples.This is perhaps too ambiguous and it needs to be fleshed out more. Are you suggesting physical rest and spiritual rest are the same thing? or may spiritual rest exist separate from physical rest? For example on the cross did Christ have spiritual rest despite his physical distress? What about the guy next to him? Would you still call this physical response while in distress a product of spiritual rest thus still an example of physical rest?
you have made the claim that these laws are "health laws". I'm asking for biblical support for this and you accuse me of calling God a tyrant. We can't just reduce comments to bullying tactics if you can't answer something. Scripture does not make a health claim as you are forcing on the text and then using that as a basis of doctrine. Explicitly speaking the Hebrews were to abstain from unclean animals to "consecrate yourselves and be holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves along the ground" (Lev 11:44). God also shows Peter is able to make all things clean which, regardless of how you approach Peter's vision, in a vacuum shows pigs as clean.Oh, so your claim is God's laws have no basis in practical usage. We shouldn't commit adultery. not because it causes pain and heartache in people's lives, but just because God says so. In other words, God's laws are arbitrary decrees on His part. He's not just. He's a tyrant.
I gave you evidence and you rejected it. I'm not responsible for your beliefs. I'm responsible for mine, and mine only.you have made the claim that these laws are "health laws". I'm asking for biblical support for this and you accuse me of calling God a tyrant. We can't just reduce comments to bullying tactics if you can't answer something. Scripture does not make a health claim as you are forcing on the text and then using that as a basis of doctrine. Explicitly speaking the Hebrews were to abstain from unclean animals to "consecrate yourselves and be holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves along the ground" (Lev 11:44). God also shows Peter is able to make all things clean which, regardless of how you approach Peter's vision, in a vacuum shows pigs as clean.
Broadly these laws and others surrounding them do have health benefits but that doesn't mean this was their primary focus. The language of clean/unclean paired with holy/unholy is a common theme and the framework of the accounts where these dietary laws or other clean/unclean laws are staged in. The surface physical components do have health benefits and were advantageous to the Hebrews or for others to adopt a similar system because of the health benefits. Muslims have ritual washing before prayer 5 times a day of the hands, feet and face and that too has been a major boost in Muslim livelihood for over 13,000 years and has contributed to their longevity. It turns out washing your hands lots is a good thing only confirmed in modern medicine in the late 19th century and more of and brought to the surface more since COVID. Muslims will also use this fact anecdotally to affirm their system is ordained by God and we should be keeping this system much like you are saying regarding the dietary laws. They also don't eat pork or drink alcohol and only this year (2023) the WHO has affirmed that any amount of alcohol is unhealthy, so again Muslims use this to affirm the superiority of their system.
Following health guidelines is good of course but what is our driving force behind following these healthy habits? Are we doing it to stay healthy or are we doing it because we are driven to keep the law? Do you drink alcohol? Jews and Christians are free to do so, and no law is in their way, Muslims are forbidden yet it turns out Muslims were right on this one, and they were also right with hand washing. Wine is a powerful spiritual metaphor in the bible and one we would not be willing to drop. So if our focus is on health then we should adopt some of these Muslim systems that also have health benefits and we should be able to separate the spiritual benefits of the wine parallelisms in the bible to get those benefits, but if we find ourselves doubting outside systems or have apathy towards them and falling back to only what the bible says then our focus is not actually health driven and we are hiding under the "health" tag line as our motive but actually are law-driven, a law that we are released from.
The difference between Covenant and Quranic law is Quranic law is hollow. It has no meaning beyond the surface and they may point to hand washing and abstaining from alcohol as superior systems but they have no underlying truth empowering them as their framework. This is contrasted with Covenant law which is full of meaning. There is indeed an immediate physical focus with physical benefits, but beyond that, it has layers of parallels, metaphors, prophecy, foreshadowing, etc... to a system completed under Christ so it makes these laws so much more powerful. It also forces the question of what is their true meaning? For the short term, their focus is the immediate physical benefits but even if followed carefully to the letter our bodies will still age, still decay and eventually, we will die so these laws may postpone the inevitable they do not rescue us from death. So who rescues us from death? is that not a focus that is worthy to be superior to the physical benefits of the law? I would say a resounded yes, as that Christ is the one who rescues us from death.
Pork may cause us to get sick and we may actually die from contaminated pork if not treated successfully but even in those circumstances Christ may still rescue us from death which was a consequence of not keeping the law, in that sense Christ rescues us from the law, since the law always returns to death. So very clearly the spiritual meaning is of far greater benefit than the physical. Because God calls all clean his spirit is released to all, because Christ has completed a work on earth ending in his death and resurrection we may be called holy and be rescued from death. We may also show others how they too can receive this rest.
I'm challenging evidence as to why the principle focus of x law as a practical application is valued over the spiritual or in parallel focus. You gave me some verses, and claimed they had health benefit and thus an implicit health focus but left the spiritual application uncommented so I'm not quite sure what your position of the spiritual applications are. There is a culture in churches that seems to feel blind faith is more noble, but this should not be a cause to stop critically looking at scripture within a scriptue vacuum to understand what it's is valuing and ultimately what the intended message is for us in a modern context. Your free to clock out if you are frustrated with the discussion, that certainly is not my intent, but I will always challenge loosely supported ideas in scripture that steer doctrinal positions.I gave you evidence and you rejected it. I'm not responsible for your beliefs. I'm responsible for mine, and mine only.
The spiritual side of this is that we are what we eat. I used to eat meat and I can tell you my spiritual perceptions have improved a lot since I stopped. I love God more and love reading His word more than I did when I ate meat. He's changed my life since then. My diet has improved as I was eating a lot of junk food and became a diabetic because of it. God healed my diabetes a couple of months ago, but the damage was already done. I have peripheral nueropathy in my feet and my hands so bad I have a hard time walking and I burnt myself cooking a couple of weeks ago really badly because I have no sensation of pain in my hands. I had picked up a hot pot and the metal pot handle burnt through several layers of skin on my middle finger and I never felt it.I'm challenging evidence as to why the principle focus of x law as a practical application is valued over the spiritual or in parallel focus. You gave me some verses, and claimed they had health benefit and thus an implicit health focus but left the spiritual application uncommented so I'm not quite sure what your position of the spiritual applications are. There is a culture in churches that seems to feel blind faith is more noble, but this should not be a cause to stop critically looking at scripture within a scriptue vacuum to understand what it's is valuing and ultimately what the intended message is for us in a modern context. Your free to clock out if you are frustrated with the discussion, that certainly is not my intent, but I will always challenge loosely supported ideas in scripture that steer doctrinal positions.
I'm sorry to hear of your struggles but I would see those things as physical side effects from physical causes. When we focus and are more physically disciplined in our life it can have a direct impact on spiritual disciplines because we tend to be more purpose driven which of course is a good thing and I'm happy to hear how you've overcome some of these struggles with the help of God.The spiritual side of this is that we are what we eat. I used to eat meat and I can tell you my spiritual perceptions have improved a lot since I stopped. I love God more and love reading His word more than I did when I ate meat. He's changed my life since then. My diet has improved as I was eating a lot of junk food and became a diabetic because of it. God healed my diabetes a couple of months ago, but the damage was already done. I have peripheral nueropathy in my feet and my hands so bad I have a hard time walking and I burnt myself cooking a couple of weeks ago really badly because I have no sensation of pain in my hands. I had picked up a hot pot and the metal pot handle burnt through several layers of skin on my middle finger and I never felt it.
Your reading of scripture is nowhere close to mine.I'm sorry to hear of your struggles but I would see those things as physical side effects from physical causes. When we focus and are more physically disciplined in our life it can have a direct impact on spiritual disciplines because we tend to be more purpose driven which of course is a good thing and I'm happy to hear how you've overcome some of these struggles with the help of God.
When I'm speaking of the spiritual aspects of the law I mean leaning towards biblically revealed spiritual meanings. The spiritual meaning of unclean/clean is unpacked in Peter's dream in Acts 10. So according to Acts 10 what is the role of clean and unclean foods?
Act 10:10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
Act 10:11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Act 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
Act 10:16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
Act 10:17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,
Act 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
Act 10:26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
Act 10:27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.
Act 10:28 And 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.
Act 10:29 Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?
Your reading of scripture is nowhere close to mine.
in the vision, God uses animals called clean and unclean, under covenant law, revealed as all clean and instructed Peter to eat of them, even to the point of almost rebuking Peter saying "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean". So the clean/unclean animals in the vision are used as a metaphor for people from the original dichotomy of clean/unclean to a meaning towards Jew/non Jew. The vision is to teach Peter that God doesn't show favoritism (Acts 10:34).Your reading of scripture is nowhere close to mine.
What did Peter learn between the time he had the vision and arrived at Cornelius' home? God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
His vision was God teaching him not to pay attention to someone's race and call no man unclean. You've ifnored the context of Peter's dream to come to the conclusion that Peter's vision had anything to do with unclean foods.
Why do you ignore the lesson Peter took away from his vision? Ever heard of God using object lessons to teach us? You know such as the sacrificial system which was one huge object lesson?in the vision, God uses animals called clean and unclean, under covenant law, revealed as all clean and intrusted Peter to eat of them, even to the point of almost rebuking Peter saying "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean". So the clean/unclean animals in the vision are used as a metaphor for people from the original dichotomy of clean/unclean to a meaning towards Jew/non Jew. The vision is to teach Peter that God doesn't show favoritism (Acts 10:34).
How you accept the vision as universally applied or not doesn't change the meaning of the clean/unclean animals in the direct context of the dream and doesn't change that in the dream all manner of animals were declared clean. The meaning is applied to people, that the spirit of God is just not reserved for the Jews, but for all people groups, first shown through the house of Cornelius. The meaning is a mirror of the law, it's only brought to light in the dream but the meaning was always there which shows us the purpose of the clean/unclean system to begin with (at least spiritually speaking), first through a system released through the Jews, then through all people groups (like you and I) who can now go directly to Christ. Caveats would be unique time-bound aspects to this clean/unclean system where under the old covenant there was a discriminatory release of God's spirit through the Jews first and under the new covenant this dichotomy of clean/unclean was removed and all made clean.
I get you still value these dietary laws and my intent is not to challenge that as that would be a digressed topic, what I am saying is Acts 10 reveals to us the spiritual meaning of the dietary laws. I will let you decide how you should continue to value the physical meaning of these laws but the spiritual meaning is expounded through the dream and something we should both be able to agree on.
Is there an aspect of this you disagree with?
[VII.A] It was taught: A priest is permitted to go out of the Land of
Israel, and thereby render himself unclean, for monetary judgments, for
capital judgments, for sanctifying the new moon, for intercalating the year,
and to save a field from seizure by a gentile. And he may go out even
with a claim to contest [the seizure]. [The principle is that all lands
outside of Israel are unclean with a form of uncleanness decreed by the
rabbis.]
[And a priest may leave Israel] to study Torah and to get married. R.
Judah says, “If he has somewhere to study [in Israel] he may not render
himself unclean [by leaving the Land].”
11. The testimony of a Gentile or Samaritan is not to be accepted in any Israelite court under any
circumstances, except for a case of divorce. Under these circumstances the testimony of either of these
classes is approved and is lawful.
Indeed, the clean/unclean system is a giant object lesson for the release of God's spirit, first to the Jews then to all people. This is the point of the law and it's spiritual focus. I'm not sure why you're fighting this, you accept the same thing just refuse to apply it to law.God had to use a very powerful object lesson with Peter because he had been taught by the Pharisees all his life that Gentiles were unclean and to be avoided at all costs.
Who says I refuse to apply it to law? I say it is required of us to take care of our bodies for our own spiritual good.Indeed, the clean/unclean system is a giant object lesson for the release of God's spirit, first to the Jews then to all people. This is the point of the law and it's spiritual focus. I'm not sure why your fighting this, you accept the same thing just refuse to apply it to law.
Sure, and as you've mentioned you have a unique personal experience that confirms this with your own health struggles that you've been able to over come with the help of God.Who says I refuse to apply it to law? I say it is required of us to take care of our bodies for our own spiritual good.
I agree with everything you say until you get to the point of denying the object lesson God was using to teach Peter not to think that Gentiles were not worth saving. You deny the entire point of why this story is in the Bible when you take the stance you do.Sure, and as you've mentioned you have a unique personal experience that confirms this with your own health struggles that you've been able to over come with the help of God.
I don't reject this and also have incorporated a routine of rest, exercise and diet in my lifestyle not just for physical benifit but knowing it has a holistic value overlapping into spiritual benifit as well. However although physical health can overlap into spiritual my point is pulling out the expliclt spiritual meaning of the text from the starting point. For example speaking light into darkness has very clear spiritual meaning that actually has nothing to do with physical light and physical darkness and as a spiritual meaning is very powerful and stands alone, where the physical testifies the spiritual.
With clean/unclean foods the law details the physical aspects and we can infer the physical benifit of following these systems but we also need to recognize it is also testifying to a greater truth and spiritual meaning, with the clean/unclean system this is scriptually unpacked in Peter's dream.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?