Joel Osteen claims the OT dietary laws are still binding in the NT.

[Der Alte]

Guess Osteen never read these verses.

Mar 7:15-20
(15) there is nothing from without the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man.
(16) If any man hath ears to hear, let him hear.
(17) And when he was entered into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked of him the parable.
(18) And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Perceive ye not, that whatsoever from without goeth into the man, it cannot defile him;
(19) because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean.
(20) And he said, That which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man.

Act 10:10-16
(10) And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
(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:
(12) Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
(13) And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
(14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
(15) And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
(16) This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

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 11:3-9
(3) Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
(4) But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,
(5) I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:
(6) Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
(7) And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.
(8) But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.
(9) But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
(10) And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven.

Rom 14:14-17
(14) I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
(15) But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
(16) Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
(17) For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

1Co 10:23-28
(23) All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
(24) Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.
(25) Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
(26) For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
(27) If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
(28) But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:

1Co 8:7-13
(7) Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
(8) But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
(9) But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
(10) For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
(11) And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
(12) But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
(13) Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.​

Amen to that, and I'll add that I Tim 4 calls dietary restrictions "doctrines of demons".

1 Timothy 4:1-5 (NKJV)
1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Darn! Missed one. Will have to add that to my list.

 

[addo]

However,if he was preaching law,he would not have been beaten up,would he?

You are wrong ... Paul preached the Law during his entire life as an apostle. Are you saying he didn't? The word of God is truth (John 17:17). The Law is truth (Psalm 119:142;151). The truth is Jesus (John 14:6).

If Paul didn't preach the Law, which is truth (Psalm 119:142), then he also didn't preach the word of God, which is also truth (John 17:17) and he didn't preach Jesus either, and He is also truth (John 14:6).

But he did preach the Law because he did preach the truth, which is Jesus, which is the word of God.

Logic is cool, isn't it?

 

[Frogster]

You are wrong ... Paul preached the Law during his entire life as an apostle. Are you saying he didn't? The word of God is truth (John 17:17). The Law is truth (Psalm 119:142;151). The truth is Jesus (John 14:6).

If Paul didn't preach the Law, which is truth (Psalm 119:142), then he also didn't preach the word of God, which is also truth (John 17:17) and he didn't preach Jesus either, and He is also truth (John 14:6).

But he did preach the Law because he did preach the truth, which is Jesus, which is the word of God.

Logic is cool, isn't it?

Did you know law has several meanings?

In the "law and the Prophets",the OT...faith was spoken of.


Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—


Rom 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

So perhaps you may want to get your definitons set first.

Thanks.

 

[addo]

28.Crying out , Men of Israel, help : This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people (the Jews), and the law (the Torah), and this place (Jerusalem): and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

You know ... the same kind of people that said this said Jesus is a sinner, in John 9:24. What kind of credibility do they have? Also, let me give you an example. Paul was preaching the fulfillment of the Law. For example, there were to be done sacrifices. There was the commandment of sacrifices. Paul preached the fulfillment of this commandment which is this: our sacrifice is Jesus Christ. Is this teaching against the Law? Certainly not. But on the contrary, it is in the advantage of the Law. Because by this teaching we do not stop the sacrificial laws but keep them, because we don't stop making sacrifices, but we already did make our sacrifice for our sins: Jesus Christ. This, and other things, are what Paul preached. They interpreted it as against the law, but it was for the law, fulfilling it.

God doesn't care what you physically, it's what you eat spiritually that concerns Him.

You are not really meaning this, are you? It is written in Revelation that God will destroy those that destroy the earth (Revelation 11:18). The earth is all the molecules and particles found in the earth. The components of our body can all be found in the earth. It is written that God made man from the (dust of the) earth (Genesis 2:7). Since we are made of earth, and God said He will destroy those that destroy the earth, we can understand that we (at least our bodies) are included in this "earth" since they are made out of it. Thus God will destroy those that destroy our bodies. That would be those that kill our bodies, whether rapidly (e.g.:with a gun) or slowly (drugs, for example, kill your body slowly; with each drug you are a step closer to the grave).

But the shorter version of all this is 1 Corinthians 3:17.

If lets say you were not cut as a baby.And then got saved as an udult,would you then circumcise,and try to follow all the laws that the Jews do?And consider it sin,to not follow all the ones that would pertain to you?And consider it sin,if you don't?

Thanks,frogster.

Let's see. In Christ we fulfill the Law. Fulfilling the Law means keeping the Law. Ask me about that if you want me to explain. Therefore, in Christ, we also keep the circumcision (if that is what you meant by "cut"). When was one circumcised? According to the law, in the eighth day. To whom was the circumcision done? To recently born babies, as you probably know.

There is an interesting thing written in the Bible: the "born again" experience (John 3). But like when you are born again the first time, and you were a baby, in the same manner when you are born again the second time you are also a baby. We can see this because Paul said once that they were too young to receive the "harder food". I don't exactly remember the verse, but I trust you know what I'm talking about.

We keep the circumcision, but we circumcise the "new born babies", which are born as Israel. We do keep it, but we do it spiritually (in the heart) to recently (new) born babies.

Dont you see that if Christ took the curse,that abrogated the law?

Since the law is truth (Psalm 119:142), did He abrogate the truth? Did He abrogate Himself, since He is also truth (John 14:6)?

..., why do you tempt God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither the fathers nor Peter and the other apostles were able to bear?"

"which neither the fathers nor Peter and the other apostles were able to bear"? Are you sure? They kept quite faithfully the dietary laws. They were very careful about that, I'm certain.

 

[1whirlwind]

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Jeremiah 31:31-33 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be My people.
​

Satan struggles against Israel and they are both houses...house of Israel (Christians) and the house of Judah (Jews). The house of Judah keep the commandments of God, which would include dietary laws. The house of Israel has the testimony of Jesus. Satan makes war with both houses. Those two houses will one day be one stick...together again [Ezekiel 37:16-19]

Notice that the "new covenant" He makes with the house of Israel (not the house of Judah) is, "I will put My law in their inward parts." Does that law include the dietary laws?


.

 

[Frogster]

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Jeremiah 31:31-33 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be My people.
​

Satan struggles against Israel and they are both houses...house of Israel (Christians) and the house of Judah (Jews). The house of Judah keep the commandments of God, which would include dietary laws. The house of Israel has the testimony of Jesus. Satan makes war with both houses. Those two houses will one day be one stick...together again [Ezekiel 37:16-19]

Notice that the "new covenant" He makes with the house of Israel (not the house of Judah) is, "I will put My law in their inward parts." Does that law include the dietary laws?


.

Then we have galatianism all over again,if the jewish chrisitans keep the dietary laws,because they are labeling the gentile Chrisitans as sinners,because the MJ"S think it is sin to eat unclean food.

That creates division.Hence..

Eph 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

 

[Der Alte]

..., why do you tempt God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither the fathers nor Peter and the other apostles were able to bear?"

"which neither the fathers nor Peter and the other apostles were able to bear"? Are you sure? They kept quite faithfully the dietary laws. They were very careful about that, I'm certain.

Oh I am absolutely certain, because I was quoting Act 15:10. For some reason you only showed part of what I quoted.

Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we [Peter speaking] were able to bear?​

By we Peter meant himself and the disciples, or himself and all Israel. By "our fathers" he included Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as other early Israelites. Whatever you may be "certain" about is not evidence.

 

[Rick Otto]

Yuk!

Eating the likes of Joel Osteen will make you very very spiritually sick!

I don't know,... I'm bettin' he's cloven hoofed.
I think I've caught him chewin' cud, but I've never seen him sweat.

 

[Duckybill]

You are wrong ... Paul preached the Law during his entire life as an apostle. Are you saying he didn't? The word of God is truth (John 17:17). The Law is truth (Psalm 119:142;151). The truth is Jesus (John 14:6).

If Paul didn't preach the Law, which is truth (Psalm 119:142), then he also didn't preach the word of God, which is also truth (John 17:17) and he didn't preach Jesus either, and He is also truth (John 14:6).

But he did preach the Law because he did preach the truth, which is Jesus, which is the word of God.

Logic is cool, isn't it?

Galatians 3:24-25 (NKJV)
24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

 

[cyberlizard]

a pedagogue was not there to teach a person, but simply lead them to the teacher The 'tutor' is somewhat like a school bus taking you somewhere.


Steve

 

[Frogster]

a pedagogue was not there to teach a person, but simply lead them to the teacher The 'tutor' is somewhat like a school bus taking you somewhere.


Steve

No,they were very strict.I gave you my sources last time,on this very issue.

gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian,

 

[RND]

1 Timothy 4:4-5 (NKJV)
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Exactly! "Set apart" by the word of God and prayer. Did the word of God "set apart" pigs? Rats? Bats? Mice? Eagles? Ravens? Nope. Those things were excluded by the word of God!

 

[Der Alte]

1 Timothy 4:4-5 (NKJV)
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Exactly! "Set apart" by the word of God and prayer. Did the word of God "set apart" pigs? Rats? Bats? Mice? Eagles? Ravens? Nope. Those things were excluded by the word of God!

Trouble with you reply is Paul did NOT say "every [clean] creature of God is good, and nothing [clean] is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving;" Your reply doesn't make sense, because why would Paul have to tell Timothy that all clean meat is good and nothing clean is is to be refused? Why would anyone refuse to eat clean food?

Your reference to "Rats? Bats? Mice" is childish. Here are a few more texts for you to try to dismiss.

Mar 7:15-20
(15) there is nothing from without the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man.
(16) If any man hath ears to hear, let him hear.
(17) And when he was entered into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked of him the parable.
(18) And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Perceive ye not, that whatsoever from without goeth into the man, it cannot defile him;
(19) because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean.
(20) And he said, That which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man.

Act 10:10-16
(10) And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
(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:
(12) Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
(13) And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
(14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
(15) And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
(16) This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
[ . . . ]
Act10:28 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 11:3-9
(3) Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
(4) But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,
(5) I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:
(6) Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
(7) And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.
(8) But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.
(9) But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
(10) And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven.

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
[ . . . ]
Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
[ . . . ]
Act 15:19-21
(19) Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
(20) But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
(21) For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
[ . . . ]
Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
[ . . . ]
Act 15:28-29
(28) For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
(29) That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Act 21:24-25
(24) Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
(25) As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

Rom 14:14-17
(14) I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
(15) But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
(16) Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
(17) For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

1Co 8:7-13
(7) Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
(8) But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
(9) But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
(10) For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
(11) And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
(12) But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
(13) Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

1Co 10:23-28
(23) All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
(24) Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.
(25) Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
(26) For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
(27) If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
(28) But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:​

 

[RND]

Trouble with you reply is Paul did NOT say "every [clean] creature of God is good, and nothing [clean] is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving;"

That's right Paul didn't specifically say that. He did say "it is sanctified by the word of God". Sanctified means set apart. God therefore did not set apart every animal to be eaten.

Your reply doesn't make sense, because why would Paul have to tell Timothy that all clean meat is good and nothing clean is is to be refused? Why would anyone refuse to eat clean food?

I think the reply is self-explanatory. Paul had to say this because there were some Jews that are much like Catholicism today that forbade people from eating certain things and marrying.

Your reference to "Rats? Bats? Mice" is childish.

To some? Sure I can see that. But the fact remains none of those animals were "sanctified" (set apart) by the word of God. The word of God should be viewed as an owner's manual for righteous living. God is the designer and maker of the human body and as such He knows the best way to care for His creation.

Only a fool would be so bold as to say, "It's my body and I'll do with it as I see fit." I'll eat what I want, or drink what I want. If the manufacturer of your car says to use only gasoline in the gas tank but you say, "No. I'm gonna use vegetable oil" then is it the maker's fault when the car doesn't work properly?

God made the human body and He didn't design humans to eat pigs. Or rats. Or bats. Or mice. Or eagles. Or ravens.

As to the other verses you quoted I'd address them but I don't it would make a dent in your theology so I'll pass. Some people have their minds made up and are convinced in what they believe no matter what others may say. So I'll bid you goodbye on this point.

 

[Der Alte]

That's right Paul didn't specifically say that. He did say "it is sanctified by the word of God". Sanctified means set apart. God therefore did not set apart every animal to be eaten.

I know what sanctified means. Jesus declared all meats clean, God declared all meats clean in Acts 10-11.

I think the reply is self-explanatory. Paul had to say this because there were some Jews that are much like Catholicism today that forbade people from eating certain things and marrying.

Everything in red is just guessing on your part. It is not stated in scripture.

To some? Sure I can see that. But the fact remains none of those animals were "sanctified" (set apart) by the word of God. The word of God should be viewed as an owner's manual for righteous living. God is the designer and maker of the human body and as such He knows the best way to care for His creation.

According to the passages of scripture I posted, all animals were declared clean by God.

As to the other verses you quoted I'd address them but I don't it would make a dent in your theology so I'll pass. Some people have their minds made up and are convinced in what they believe no matter what others may say. So I'll bid you goodbye on this point.

Yes some people do have their minds made up and they will add to scripture as you have done, and ignore anything and everything which proves them wrong, also as you have done. There is no credible, verifiable, historical evidence for any group of Christian believers who observed dietary laws as you do, between 90 AD, when the N.T. was completed, and the late 19th century when religious groups who do observe the dietary laws came into being. I don't have a problem with anyone who chooses to observe the laws as long as they don't try to pretend that the NT supports them and try to force their beliefs on others. Here is what the early church believed about the dietary laws.

Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] The Instructor Book II

Peter abstained from swine; "but a trance fell on him," as is written in the Acts of the Apostles, "and he saw heaven opened, and a vessel let down on the earth by the four corners, and all the four-looted beasts and creeping things of the earth and the fowls of heaven in it; and there came a voice to him, Rise, and slay, and eat. And Peter said, Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten what is common or unclean. And the voice came again to him the second time, What God hath cleansed, call not thou common."47 The use of them is accordingly indifferent to us. "For not what entereth into the mouth defileth the man,"48 but the vain opinion respecting uncleanness. For God, when He created man, said, "All things shall be to you for meat."49

Origen [A.D. 185-230-254] Against Celsus Book II

And so, according to the promise of Jesus, the Spirit of truth came to Peter, saying to him, with regard to the four-footed beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air: “Arise, Peter; kill, and eat.” And the Spirit came to him while he was still in a state of superstitious ignorance; for he said, in answer to the divine command, “Not so Lord; for I have never yet eaten anything common or unclean.” He instructed him, however, in the true and spiritual meaning of meats, by saying, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” And so, after that vision, the Spirit of truth, which conducted Peter into all the truth, told him the many things which he was unable to bear when Jesus was still with him in the flesh. But I shall have another opportunity of explaining those matters, which are connected with the literal acceptation of the Mosaic law.

Origen Against Celsus Book VI

But neither do the Jews pride themselves upon abstaining from swine’s flesh, as if it were some great thing; but upon their having ascertained the nature of clean and unclean animals, and the cause of the distinction, and of swine being classed among the unclean. And these distinctions were signs of certain things until the advent of Jesus; after whose coming it was said to His disciple, who did not yet comprehend the doctrine concerning these matters, but who said, “Nothing that is common or unclean hath entered into my mouth,” “What God hath cleansed, call not thou common.” It therefore in no way affects either the Jews or us that the Egyptian priests abstain not only from the flesh of swine, but also from that of goats, and sheep, and oxen, and fish. But since it is not that “which entereth into the mouth that defiles a man,” and since “meat does not commend us to God,” we do not set great store on refraining from eating, nor yet are we induced to eat from a gluttonous appetite. And therefore, so far as we are concerned, the followers of Pythagoras, who abstain from all things that contain life may do as they please; only observe the different reason for abstaining from things that have life on the part of the Pythagoreans and our ascetics.​

 

[RND]

I know what sanctified means. Jesus declared all meats clean, God declared all meats clean in Acts 10-11.

Then why didn't Peter kill and eat the gentiles that knocked on his door that told him that Cornelius wanted to see him?

Acts 10-11 simply compares gentiles with common/unclean animals. Jews never associated with gentiles. Jews would routinely disassemble from the company of the gentiles whenever they could or may be confronted by other Jews. This explains why Paul confronted Peter when he did this - See Galatians 2.

Everything in red is just guessing on your part. It is not stated in scripture.

Read verses 1-3.

1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

According to the passages of scripture I posted, all animals were declared clean by God.

That would be according to your "interpretation" of those scriptures.


"And these distinctions were signs of certain things until the advent of Jesus;"

Great. What were the signs that the prohibition of eating certain animals point to regarding the advent of Christ?

 

[Der Alte]

Then why didn't Peter kill and eat the gentiles that knocked on his door that told him that Cornelius wanted to see him?

When was Peter ever told to kill and eat gentiles? You are mixing your assumptions/presuppositions with what the text actually says.

Acts 10-11 simply compares gentiles with common/unclean animals. Jews never associated with gentiles. Jews would routinely disassemble from the company of the gentiles whenever they could or may be confronted by other Jews. This explains why Paul confronted Peter when he did this - See Galatians 2. Read verses 1-3.

Where does scripture specifically state that the sole purpose of the vision in Acts 10 was to "compares gentiles with common/unclean animals?" Peter extended the vision to include associating with gentiles one time. Nothing in scripture clearly states that the vision did not mean what it said and said what it meant. God never gave a commandment to a Jew in the form of a parable. And he certainly didn't leave someone to hopefully figure out a "parable" on their own.

That would be according to your "interpretation" of those scriptures.

That is the interpretation of the entire church for 2000 +/- years until EGW started her own unscriptural religion.

"And these distinctions were signs of certain things until the advent of Jesus;"

Great. What were the signs that the prohibition of eating certain animals point to regarding the advent of Christ?

Huh?

 

[RND]

When was Peter ever told to kill and eat gentiles? You are mixing your assumptions/presuppositions with what the text actually says.

Peter was never told to kill and eat gentiles or any other animal. My stated assumptions/presumptions are based on your stated understanding of what Acts 10-11 say. You believe that the vision God gave Peter freed everyone to eat whatever they want. Yet in God's vision to Peter the instruction was to "kill and eat". So using your understanding then Peter should have killed and eaten the gentile messengers that knocked on his door.

Clearly Peter understood the vision when he said, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." The comparison was being made between gentiles and unclean animals and was not a directive as to eating unclean animals.

Where does scripture specifically state that the sole purpose of the vision in Acts 10 was to "compares gentiles with common/unclean animals?"

You mean it isn't obvious?

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.

Peter extended the vision to include associating with gentiles one time.

Really? Where does it say that?

Nothing in scripture clearly states that the vision did not mean what it said and said what it meant. God never gave a commandment to a Jew in the form of a parable. And he certainly didn't leave someone to hopefully figure out a "parable" on their own.

I think the situation Peter in and his understanding of the vision he was given is more than clear. In fact it cannot be missed unless one has a preconceived notion based on poor teaching.

That is the interpretation of the entire church for 2000 +/- years until EGW started her own unscriptural religion.

That doesn't make the interpretation of "the church" correct however. Just because "the church" teaches it doesn't make it correct. As far as your EGW comment there really is no need to try and attack me through EGW.

Huh?

I was quoting Origen and asked a question in relation to the quote. Origen's quote was, ""And these distinctions were signs of certain things until the advent of Jesus;"

To which I asked, "What were the signs that the prohibition of eating certain animals point to regarding the advent of Christ? "

In other words Origen was claiming that the distinctive practices of the Israelites (not just Jews) regarding foods were "signs" of certain things until the advent of Christ. So I asked, "What were the signs that the prohibition of eating certain animals point to regarding the advent of Christ?" What did the prohibition against eating pork or bats or rats point to regarding Christ? It's a fair question.

 

[Der Alte]

Peter was never told to kill and eat gentiles or any other animal. My stated assumptions/presumptions are based on your stated understanding of what Acts 10-11 say. You believe that the vision God gave Peter freed everyone to eat whatever they want. Yet in God's vision to Peter the instruction was to "kill and eat". So using your understanding then Peter should have killed and eaten the gentile messengers that knocked on his door.

You claim, "Peter was never told to kill and eat gentiles or any other animal." In the vision Peter was told three times to rise, kill, and eat the only thing in the vision, all kinds of four footed animals, creeping things, and birds. Each time Peter replied he had never eaten anything unclean. At the time of the vision, from Peter's response, he clearly understood that he was being commanded to kill and eat all kinds of creatures, clean and unclean and during the vision he said nothing about gentiles. My "stated understanding" is that the passage means exactly what it says and says exactly what it means.

Clearly Peter understood the vision when he said, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." The comparison was being made between gentiles and unclean animals and was not a directive as to eating unclean animals.

Ignoring Peter's three refusals to eat anything unclean at the time of the vision. At the time of the vision Peter understood it to mean exactly what it said Rise, Peter, kill and eat all kinds of creatures. Peter said nothing about gentiles during the threefold vision. Each time Peter responded "Not so Lord I have never eaten anything common or unclean."

Really? Where does it say that?

The same place that it says God told Peter there was no difference between gentiles and Jews.

I think the situation Peter in and his understanding of the vision he was given is more than clear. In fact it cannot be missed unless one has a preconceived notion based on poor teaching.

What you "think" is immaterial, and irrelevant. My only preconceived notion is that scripture means what it says and says what it means unless it is clearly stated that the language was figurative. God does NOT give commands to his people in figurative language and leave them to figure it out for themselves.

That doesn't make the interpretation of "the church" correct however. Just because "the church" teaches it doesn't make it correct.

Jesus said that he would build his church on the rock and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. His church did not disappear for 2000 years only to be discovered by someone in the 19th century. So when I quote the only extant history of that church in the first 300 years it will take more than empty specious objections like this to prove them wrong.

As far as your EGW comment there really is no need to try and attack me through EGW.

You do not know the difference between me attacking you, personally, and pointing out the errors of your beliefs? The beliefs that you are promoting were begun at a certain time, by a certain person, 2000 years +/- after the NT was completed. There is no credible, verifiable, historical evidence for any organized body of adherents who held those beliefs in that 2000 year period until the time they were first proposed by that certain person.

I was quoting Origen and asked a question in relation to the quote. Origen's quote was, ""And these distinctions were signs of certain things until the advent of Jesus;""

To which I asked, "What were the signs that the prohibition of eating certain animals point to regarding the advent of Christ? "

In other words Origen was claiming that the distinctive practices of the Israelites (not just Jews) regarding foods were "signs" of certain things until the advent of Christ. So I asked, "What were the signs that the prohibition of eating certain animals point to regarding the advent of Christ?" What did the prohibition against eating pork or bats or rats point to regarding Christ? It's a fair question.

Perhaps you should read Origen's writing, which I quoted, instead of trying to attack Origen's position based on one out-of-context sentence? Why do you find it necessary to include bats and rats? I'm not aware of anyone who eats those things. Do you think exaggeration somehow makes your argument more correct?

 

[RND]

You claim, "Peter was never told to kill and eat gentiles or any other animal." In the vision Peter was told three times to rise, kill, and eat the only thing in the vision, all kinds of four footed animals, creeping things, and birds.

In the vision these animals represented the gentiles that Peter did not associate with. Peter did not come down off of the roof where he had this vision and immediately proceed to kill and eat things!

That's what my meaning was behind my statement.

Each time Peter replied he had never eaten anything unclean. At the time of the vision, from Peter's response, he clearly understood that he was being commanded to kill and eat all kinds of creatures, clean and unclean and during the vision he said nothing about gentiles.

Yet Peter didn't actually kill and eat things. Instead he took a journey to see a gentile, Cornelius, with his gentile messengers.

Peter didn't kill and eat those gentiles. Was he disobeying God when he did come down from the roof and eat a pig?

My "stated understanding" is that the passage means exactly what it says and says exactly what it means.

If that's truly the case then this passage should cause you to ask many, many questions about it instead of being so dogmatic about what it "doesn't" say!

Ignoring Peter's three refusals to eat anything unclean at the time of the vision. At the time of the vision Peter understood it to mean exactly what it said Rise, Peter, kill and eat all kinds of creatures. Peter said nothing about gentiles during the threefold vision. Each time Peter responded "Not so Lord I have never eaten anything common or unclean."

If that's the case then why didn't Peter come down from the roof and kill and eat common animals? Peter understood what the vision meant by trusting God by leaving with the gentile messengers that came to bring him to Cornelius. He did not come down from the roof and eat a rat.

The same place that it says God told Peter there was no difference between gentiles and Jews.

Just "one time"? Really?

What you "think" is immaterial, and irrelevant.

To you that is true.

My only preconceived notion is that scripture means what it says and says what it means unless it is clearly stated that the language was figurative. God does NOT give commands to his people in figurative language and leave them to figure it out for themselves.

That's right. Peter was in a trance and in vision and by Peter's actions alone one should easily be able to conclude that this vision Peter had was regarding intermingling with gentile believers and not diet and food. Again, whether you wish to see it or not is up to you, the preconceived idea you have about this passage cannot be sustained by the actual actions of Peter. Peter did not come off the roof and kill and eat. He left with gentiles. In fact nowhere in this passage do we see Peter killing and eating anything!

Jesus said that he would build his church on the rock and the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

The Rock was Jesus. Peter was "petros"...a little stone.

His church did not disappear for 2000 years only to be discovered by someone in the 19th century. So when I quote the only extant history of that church in the first 300 years it will take more than empty specious objections like this to prove them wrong.

Fortunately these earlier writings have no dogmatic authority over me.

You do not know the difference between me attacking you, personally, and pointing out the errors of your beliefs? The beliefs that you are promoting were begun at a certain time, by a certain person, 2000 years +/- after the NT was completed.

Oh, you mean like the bodily assumption of Mary being made doctrine 2,000 years after the epistles were written? Tell me, where does the Bible ever say, even once, that Mary ascended into heaven.

There is no credible, verifiable, historical evidence for any organized body of adherents who held those beliefs in that 2000 year period until the time they were first proposed by that certain person.

Um, that's because the church used ruthless cruelty, merciless persecutions and ignorance of the scriptures through illiteracy to keep people under their thumb.

Perhaps you should read Origen's writing, which I quoted, instead of trying to attack Origen's position based on one out-of-context sentence?

Perhaps you should try to answer the question instead of dodging it!

Why do you find it necessary to include bats and rats?

Because they are unclean animals and logic would dictate that if Peter's vision was in regards to eating unclean animals of all sorts then we would be eating them. The Bible is clear.

I'm not aware of anyone who eats those things. Do you think exaggeration somehow makes your argument more correct?

Frankly? Yes! And it also shows just how inconsistent the position you and so many other misguided and misinformed Christians hold actually is.

Remember if peter did not come down from that roof and kill and eat then he must have been disobeying God. The fact that Peter left with the gentile assistance of Cornelius and did not eat them should cause you to think that Peter understood what the vision he was given meant!