Rich Warren & Joel Osteen preach the Daniel Diet!

[LittleLambofJesus]

Had to walk away and laugh on this one. What an embarassing statement. I guess you haven't read about Noah. What you say would mean that God told Noah to sin.
3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. Gen 9

Not to mention that this kind of statement also makes God (Jesus) a murderer. Jesus ate meat. Even if He didn't do the deed He participated in the results. Sacrifice is taking the life of the innocent and mandated by the law. Thus according to you the law demanded sin.

You're just way to far off base to not be funny. I'll say you do have a very interesting web of deception. Works only on the ignorant.

I kinda remember that

http://www.christianforums.com/t7613260-11/#post59190708
Noah's floating meat market

 

[winslow]

People who preach about "The Daniel Diet" crack me up. Have they never read the text? Daniel doesn't lose weight on this forced diet. He gained weight.

The whole point of the text was that, rather than wasting away, like Nebuchadnezzar planned, God blessed them and prospered him because of his refusal to eat the pagan food.

The first error of your argument is that the purpose of any diet is to lose weight. A proper diet promotes healthy living.

The second error of your argument was that it was Nebuchadnezzar's plan that they would waste away. It was nebuchadnezzar's intention to feed them well and instruct them in the Chaldean ways. The person in charge of Daniel and his companions were responsible to Nebuchadnezzar for their well being and would be held accountable if they fell ill for being ill fed.

The whole incident is to reveal Daniels faith to his God and witness to his captors despite his captivity.

 

[Lysimachus]

The first error of your argument is that the purpose of any diet is to lose weight. A proper diet promotes healthy living.

The second error of your argument was that it was Nebuchadnezzar's plan that they would waste away. It was nebuchadnezzar's intention to feed them well and instruct them in the Chaldean ways. The person in charge of Daniel and his companions were responsible to Nebuchadnezzar for their well being and would be held accountable if they fell ill for being ill fed.

The whole incident is to reveal Daniels faith to his God and witness to his captors despite his captivity.

 

[TruthWave7]

no no no..did the jews eat gentile food?
what was the issue? he was EATING..EATING..with gentiles, that is the context.
and why is the context established in 14? he was living as a gentile, until the law people came.
tell me.. does 14 not show a change in direction?..how was peter living, prior till the law people came? it says..LIVE..LIVE. that would have included diet, and the connection to the EATING of verse 12.
You're acting like it was about a poker game, when we all know the mosaic food laws were a huge issue among the jews and gentiles.
14But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?" How can he previously LIVE AS A GENTILE? And eat unclean food?
thanks, your pal frog.

You have this amazing ability to make things complicated, that are so simple, if one has a BIG picture understanding of the OT and the NT. But, you view things using a SMALL chopped up interpretive model which was contrived by the Jesuits, and repackaged by Darby, which has morphed into the modern Dispensationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once you embrace that mode of biblical interpretation, you will forever be deceived by its sly slice and dice method of interpretation that does away with almost everything from the OT, which was the Scriptural basis of Jesus teachings in the NT!! No wonder there is so little understanding of Bible among evangelicals when it comes to the OT and Bible prophecy, because they have been told by their Pastors that the OT was nailed to the cross, and you don't have to worry about understanding prophecy because you won't be here when it happens, you will already be raptured!!

 

[Lysimachus]

Not every single thing, but you claim that these are a command from God and vitally important.
If they were, Jesus would have said so. If it was imperative for Gentiles to keep them he would have also said so, and told the Gentiles whom he healed to obey them.

In a world where the Jews were very strict about the dietary laws, it would be obvious why Christ would not stress such laws. They were legalists who kept far more than the dietary laws---they also included the Talmudic laws. Christ's mission was to help them see that they must have the law written in their hearts. That was the New Covenant promise. But their exacting traditions veiled their understanding.

The law was given to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. It was the Israelites who had been slaves in Egypt, were rescued by God, led to his holy mountain to receive his law on their way to the land which God had promised to their ancestors. The food laws were given to them, and you think that I, as a Gentile, have been commanded by God to obey them?

God's laws were given also to the gentiles. See Isaiah 56. The issue with clean and unclean meat applies to all flesh. See Isaiah 66:15-17. Keeping the commandments is the whole duty of man (See Ecclesiastes 12:12,13).

Jesus was God in the flesh, came to reveal God, teach us about him and show us his love. He taught us many things about love, forgiveness, calling God Father, receiving the Holy Spirit and that his blood was being shed for the sins of the world. He did give us a new command; to love as he loved us. But the only thing he said about food is that NOTHING which goes into a person's mouth can make him unclean.

And the context of what Jesus said had to do with "unwashen hands". In other words, the issue here was spiritual defilement by touching food with unwashed hands. It had nothing to do with the dietary health laws of Leviticus. An unclean piece of pork is unclean whether it was touched with unwashed hands or not.

It is not reported once that Jesus ate anything unclean. He is our example.

No, but that is not loving as Jesus loved, so we shouldn't do it. And if we truly love God and our neighbour, we wouldn't want to.

Is it loving to lie to someone and tell them they will be okay with their health if they continue to eat foods which God has forbidden, because He knows best that they are not good for us? Has it ever occurred to you that God does not impose arbitrary rules on people without a solid reason behind it? The best academics, and scientific researches in health have testified the Bible to be 100% accurate in its identification of unclean meats. All the unclean meats listed in the Bible have been proven scientifically to be the highest in disease causing compared to all the other meats. I could send you papers and papers and papers of academic research on this matter.

Which mention nothing at all about food and what not to eat.

Concerning the Ten, as I have already stated, not eating unclean meats is a higher and more advanced course of learning. All of it falls under the pretext of the principles laid out in the Ten Commandments. Just that one commandment of not killing is exceeding broad in its meaning, and it includes anything that harms the human body.

"thy commandment is exceeding broad. (Psalms 119:96)

I don't think so! What do you think the Jews did to animals they needed to sacrifice for their sins, or the annual Passover lamb?

You may not think so! But it IS so! =] One more time: "thy commandment is exceeding broad. (Psalms 119:96)

We're not talking about killing animals here. We're talking about human beings. We have no right to destroy our temples.

YOU say this, the NT doesn't.

Yes it does. James 4:17 couldn't be clearer. Also Hebrews 10:26. When we willfully go against "knowledge", we are sinning. Daniel 12 talks about how in the last days knowledge would increase. Science has established the harmfulness of these unclean meat substances. When we willfully go against something that God has showed us through scientific studies that it is bad for us, we are breaking the principles inherent in James 4:17 of doing something contrary to what we know to be good.

All will pay in the judgment for willfully abusing their bodies when they knew there was a better way.

The 10 commandments are summed up in 2; love God and love your neighbour. Eating pork doesn't harm or upset either.

I love my neighbor enough to tell my neighbor that the Bible reveals that we have a duty to live up to the knowledge that God has revealed to us. God reveals knowledge to us through science as well. And science reveals the harmfulness of these unclean meat substances. I love my neighbor so much, that I will warn them, and I will show them why God gave us these dietary laws in Leviticus.

It is not in eating these unclean meats themselves that will cause them to be lost. What will cause them to be lost is when they willfully partook of them even while knowing the damage they can do to their bodies, and still going ahead and doing it anyway. This, in essence, is breaking the commandment of "thou shalt not kill".

Yes and he did not teach that abstaining form pork was compulsory for Gentiles.

He also never once told a Gentile that not killing, not stealing, and not committing adultery was compulsory for Gentiles. Everytime he quoted these commandments, he was talking to a Jew.

This "Jewish" vs. "Gentile" thing is a stumblingblock to some of you Christians. You can't seem to look past that and see God's unity as one people. The digestive system of a Gentile is no different than the digestive system of a Jew. It is ludicrous to think that God somehow protects the Gentile from the harmful effects and parasites found in Pork, but God did not have the power to protect the Jew's digestive system, so therefore God had to tell them to abstain.

Ridiculous.

And they say nothing about food laws, what to eat or wear, what job to take and how to live your every day life.

See above. You repeat yourself too much. Christ's teachings were all encompassing, and far reaching beyond the basic elementary courses of the law. God was trying to reach their hearts. They knew the law well. The law meant nothing to them because they were performing them by works. Christ came to show that salvation is by Grace along through Faith, and true works is a result of faith. They were performing works without the faith. A true faith is a faith that works by love and purifies the soul.

Right, so you're a vegetarian then? The only thing you kill are plants? Even though Jesus and the disciples ate meat - lamb every Passover and the disciples were fishermen - you claim that killing animals is murder.

Did I say it was a sin to eat those meats? Never did. But I'm more than a vegetarian. I'm a vegan. I do it for health reasons. Notice there is no record of Jesus ever eating an unclean animal. Had I lived in Jesus' day, you can be sure I would have partook of these clean animals. There wasn't the pollution, oil spills, and toxic waste that they have today. But scriptures teach that in the last days, pestilences would increase throughout the world and the earth would wax old. Disease amongst animals has sky-rocketed, and it is more dangerous to eat even clean animals than it has ever been before. Based on the knowledge that has reached me concerning the risks involved with animal meats in these last days, I choose to refrain, and it is my encouragement for others to refrain as well. I'm sure Jesus would have done the same had He come to us in our day.

Daniel was a type of the last days. They chose to be vegetarian by eating "zeroa" (things that are sown). They faced Nebuchadnezzar (the beast), and the Image (of the beast). These things serve as a type of what Christians will face in Revelation--concerning a beast and its image. We are to preserve our minds so that we may retain sharp discernment in defending the faith. Anything unclean and toxic must remain outside of the body. We even have unclean birds in the book of Revelation (18:2) as being "hateful".

You're saying the disciples were all murderers and Jesus ate the produce of murder? I think you need to think this through.

Nope, because these animals were safe back then. I don't believe they are today. Also, when Ellen White wrote concerning vegetarianism today, she did so only under the pretext of the times we are living in. She said the diet reform would need to be progressive as we advanced in the last days. God gave her visions, and she had a hard time giving up her meat, but she finally did what God told her. Her message is for these last generations, with our current circumstances and the increase of disease amongst animals. It was not for Jesus's day, but Jesus knew what would come in the last days, so he sent a prophet. A true prophet. Whether people like it or not.

Umm, it doesn't. We are saved because of what JESUS has done - i.e died for our sins on the cross.
You are linking the eating of pork to eternal damnation?

"Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." (Revelation 22:14)

"He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2:4)

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." (Revelation 21:8)

"For behold, the LORD will come with fire, And with His chariots, like a whirlwind, To render His anger with fury, And His rebuke with flames of fire. For by fire and by His sword, The LORD will judge all flesh; And the slain of the LORD shall be many. “Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the gardens, After an idol in the midst, Eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together,” says the LORD." (Isaiah 66:15-17)

The Bible speaks for itself! Sorry, I have to go by the Bible.

I know it's tough, but that's what the Bible is. Tough.

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hosea 4:12)

Well good for you, that is your choice and your right. But you can't force your lifestyle on anyone else, far less insist that the New Testament demands it.

I do not, nor ever have forced my lifestyle on anyone else. Concerning the unclean meats though, I am compelled from scripture that it is an abomination, and I will do my part to warn people. It is not just a sin, but listed as an "abomination". They were listed in the category of abominable things---why? Because they were extremely unhealthy, and disease causing. God knew this.

Walter Veith, who is a nutritionist and biologist, did immense studies in his laboratory concerning unclean meats, and all the findings were in accordance with the Bible.

It's not a "basic elementary". Abstaining from pork has nothing to do with salvation and was not taught or commanded by Jesus. There is no Scripture which says that God expects it of us. It doesn't save. Jesus saves, NOTHING else.

More repetition. Read above.

YOU say that; the NT doesn't.

My Bible does, and I am not just an NT Christian. I am an All-Bible Christian.

"All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16,17)

To refrain from eating unclean meats, and to warn others, is in harmony with this passage. We are showing true love. We can't force them, but we can tell them what the Bible expects of them if they wish to claim to be true Christians.

Really? Where does it say that then?
Some of the things they did in the OT sound fairly abominable - like killing and stoning people to death. And you've just said that killing people is murder and forbidden in the 10 commandments. Should we stone people to death too?

Executing judgment is not abominable. These were civil penalties by the civil government of Jewish theocracy. Killing or murdering wrongfully is wrong, but when God commands, we obey. God did not order us or anyone to eat unclean meats and willfully kill ourselves. And He would not. I think you can discern this difference if you really want to, but you are picking on straws and not grasping the real issues. There is no argument here. You know very well the difference between wrongful killing and rightful killing, and you know very well what the 6th commandment means.

Not "suddenly", they never DID apply to Gentiles.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 do not apply to Gentiles? Okay, thank you for letting me know that you endorse homosexual practices between professed Christians. Next time one of your Christian comrades quotes those passages in defense of marriage between a man and a woman, remember to remind them of this.

 

[Lysimachus]

Abstaining from pork does not save. Jesus saves. Food laws given to the Jews have nothing to do with salvation. End of - they just don't.
No way am I giving praise and credit for my salvation to a pig - it's not going to happen, no way. Jesus saves - claiming that pork has anything to do with it is denying what he has done for us.

Did I mention that Jesus saves and pork doesn't?

Nothing you do saves. Not even honoring your mother and father can save you. Only Jesus can save. But those who have been saved by Jesus will prove it in their works, and will obey Him and follow Him. Don't keep contradicting yourself. You will probably respond to this and say "but it mentions nothing about dietary laws". But wait a minute, you just said Jesus saves, and so you are implying that nothing we do saves, but then when I show you that what we do does matter, then you turn around and say the dietary laws aren't mentioned in those things not to do. lol. Oh my. Your reasoning is endlessly circular.

The point is, if one doesn't live a life of righteousness (in harmony with the requirements of the law--clean from sin), and they willfully violate principles, they can claim they have been saved all they want, but their fruits testify that this isn't so. There is so much scripture to back this, it isn't even worth quoting them.

God bless.

 

[Lysimachus]

You have this amazing ability to make things complicated, that are so simple, if one has a BIG picture understanding of the OT and the NT. But, you view things using a SMALL chopped up interpretive model which was contrived by the Jesuits, and repackaged by Darby, which has morphed into the modern Dispensationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once you embrace that mode of biblical interpretation, you will forever be deceived by its sly slice and dice method of interpretation that does away with almost everything from the OT, which was the Scriptural basis of Jesus teachings in the NT!! No wonder there is so little understanding of Bible among evangelicals when it comes to the OT and Bible prophecy, because they have been told by their Pastors that the OT was nailed to the cross, and you don't have to worry about understanding prophecy because you won't be here when it happens, you will already be raptured!!

So true. Sadly, what most Christians fail to understand is that most of their doctrines are built on Jesuit foundations. Since their foundations are all wrong, laid down by the Jesuits, breaking up the unity of God's people, and making Revelation belong only to the Jews, and creating a fictitious futuristic tyrant, they divide up not only God's people, but break up His laws. =/

 

[cesty]

There is so much scripture to back this, it isn't even worth quoting them.

The Scripture is certainly worth quoting; however, there comes a point when you have to walk away from a discussion.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Lysimachus There is so much scripture to back this, it isn't even worth quoting them.

The Scripture is certainly worth quoting; however, there comes a point when you have to walk away from a discussion.

There are so many SDA posts on this thead, I thought I was on the SDA board

Traditional Adventists - Christian Forums
Traditional Adventists

Progressive/Moderate Adventists - Christian Forums
Progressive/Moderate Adventists

 

[Strong in Him]

In a world where the Jews were very strict about the dietary laws, it would be obvious why Christ would not stress such laws.

Not only did he not stress them, he didn't even teach obedience to them. He said that NOTHING that goes into a man's mouth makes him unclean.

Christ's mission was to help them see that they must have the law written in their hearts. That was the New Covenant promise.

Jesus came to fulfill the Jewish law and prophets and is the fulfilment of the law for the Jews; he is the Messiah. Jesus summed the 10 commandments up in two; love God with all your heart, soul and mind and love your neighbour as yourself. He then gave his followers a new command - to love as he loved us.

Christ's mission, as you put it, was to reconcile mankind back to God; make it possible for us to be forgiven and receive eternal life. He did this by offering his life as a once and for all sacrifice on the cross. This he did for Jews and Gentiles.

We can all have God's word in our heart now. Jesus is the Word of God and can live in us through his Spirit. We can all know God for ourselves and pray to him directly, not have to rely on prophets to tell us his word.

God's laws were given also to the gentiles. See Isaiah 56.

This doesn't mention Gentiles being told not to eat pork.

the context of what Jesus said had to do with "unwashen hands". In other words, the issue here was spiritual defilement by touching food with unwashed hands. It had nothing to do with the dietary health laws of Leviticus. An unclean piece of pork is unclean whether it was touched with unwashed hands or not.

It is not reported once that Jesus ate anything unclean. He is our example.

No it doesn't. That is the issue at the beginning of the chapter, but then Jesus and the disciples leave the crowd, go indoors and the disciples ask him about what he had just said - i.e that nothing that goes into a person's mouth makes him unclean. Of course they wanted to ask him about it. They were Jews, he was a Jew and he had just publicly said that NOTHING that a person eats makes him unclean. Jesus was explaining his words to the disciples - that the reason food cannot make them unclean is because it goes into the stomach only and then out again! The REAL things that make people unclean or impure, are things that come from the heart - immoral behaviour and so on. He does not refer to the incident of unwashed hands again. He doesn't mention hands at all, it is attitudes and words, he says, that make someone unclean NOT something they happen to eat.

Is it loving to lie to someone and tell them they will be okay with their health if they continue to eat foods which God has forbidden, because He knows best that they are not good for us? Has it ever occurred to you that God does not impose arbitrary rules on people without a solid reason behind it? The best academics, and scientific researches in health have testified the Bible to be 100% accurate in its identification of unclean meats. All the unclean meats listed in the Bible have been proven scientifically to be the highest in disease causing compared to all the other meats. I could send you papers and papers and papers of academic research on this matter.

That's as maybe. But health reasons and Biblical commands are two different things.

Concerning the Ten, as I have already stated, not eating unclean meats is a higher and more advanced course of learning.

That's beginning to sound dangerously like Gnosticism - the suggestion that if someone reads the 10 commandmets they will see just the 10 commandments, but if they have more knoledge and learning, maybe more spiritual, they will realise that ssomewhere in those 10 is the command not to eat pork.

Just that one commandment of not killing is exceeding broad in its meaning,

Yes I'm sure it is. But your words were that not eating pork is included in the 10 commandments because of the command "you shall not kill". That's why I said, "I don't think so!" It's not the case. The Jews had to kill thousands of animals a year to sacrifice for their sins, and kill lambs for the Passover. If killing animals is a violation of that command, then God contradicted himself - one minute telling them not to kill, the next telling them exactly how and what animals to kill to sacrifice to him.

So saying that the 10 commandments tell us not to eat pork because God told us not to kill, is ridiculous.

Yes it does. James 4:17 couldn't be clearer.

Read it again, "anyone who knows the good he ought to do and does not do it, sins."

This is a verse for you - YOU believe that not eating pork is good, so you need to do that. If you don't, you sin. That's actually the verse I was thinking of earlier when I said that if you are convinced you have to give up pork and stick to an OT diet that that's what you have to do.

I do not KNOW that not eating pork is good. I don't have that belief and absolute conviction that you have - and I don't see it taught in the pages of the NT.
As I've said, Jesus did not teach it, or say that his Father commanded it, or included it in the Great Commission, or told people to come to him, repent, believe and stop eating pork, and they will have eternal life.
The apostles did not teach Gentiles not to eat pork. It was not part of the Gospel which they taught. In fact Paul spoke out quite strongly against those who tried to make Gentiles obey the Jewish law before they could be saved.

So I would be sinning if I knew that eating pork was wrong but did it anyway; but I don't.

This "Jewish" vs. "Gentile" thing is a stumblingblock to some of you Christians. You can't seem to look past that and see God's unity as one people.

That's because we're not.
In the OT the Israelites, who were later called Jews, were God's chosen people. He had chosen them, saved them and given them his covenant. Then Jesus came, to fulfil the New Covenant (Jer 31:31-34) and reconcile us to God. He fulfilled all thje OT prophecies that were made about him and fulfills the law. All things are fulfilled and come together in Jesus. HE is the "stone which the builders rejected, and anyone who falls on that stone will be cut to pieces". HE is the way to the Father, the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6.) HE has been given the name that is above every name, and to whom EVERY person will one day bow. (Phil 2:10). Anyone who accepts JESUS has life, anyone who rejects Jesus, doesn't. Jesus did not praise the Pharisees for keeping the Sabbath, the law and not eating pork - he criticised them for rejecting him. Any Jew who now accepts Jesus as their Messiah is saved; any Gentile who believes this is called a Christian, is born again, knows God as their Father and is adopted into his family.

Jews who reject Jesus are not saved just because they abstained from pork. If the food laws could save us, Jesus would not have needed to have come.

The digestive system of a Gentile is no different than the digestive system of a Jew. It is ludicrous to think that God somehow protects the Gentile from the harmful effects and parasites found in Pork, but God did not have the power to protect the Jew's digestive system, so therefore God told them from abstain.

Ridiculous.

It's ridiculous to imply that the only reason eating pork is a sin is because it may damage your digestive system which is apparently "killing the body" (see 6th commandment). There are plenty of people who've eaten pork and lived to a fair old age.

I know of people who were vegetarians and died young. If they were not Christians and had not believed in the Lord Jesus when they died, they died sinners - no matter how healthy their bodies.
In our church we do not teach that eating pork is a sin. We have had several people die in their 90s, the most recent was 97. If she believed in the Lord Jesus when she died she was saved, no matter how many bacon butties she'd had throughout her life.

See above. You repeat yourself too much.

That could be either because I ask questions that you don't answer, or in the hope that you might grasp what I am saying.
But you've repeated yourself a few times in this post - and the SDAs I've talked to one here repeat the same arguments and Scriptures again and again. So I don't quite see why you complain about it.

The Bible speaks for itself! Sorry, I have to go by the Bible.

So do I. And there are no verses in the NT which say that eating pork is a sin - plenty that speak of salvation, accepting Jesus, reading his word and obeying God, but none which saying that the sausage rolls I had for lunch yesterday were sinful.

So, yes I'm going to repeat myself again. Jesus saves, abstaining from pork doesn't.

 

[Lysimachus]

Unfortunately when you make other things as requirements then you are just paying lip service to the above.

We have to take the Bible as a whole. While salvation is by Grace through Faith alone, obedience is still a requirement. "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13) "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:17), "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." (James 1:22).

Notice that Paul does not say that the law justifies you. Only Jesus can justify you. But yet only doers will be justified. You cannot be justified and knowingly and willfully continue in sin and not obey the law. Remember, sin is defined by the law. Without the law, there is no sin. Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4; Romans 3:20; Romans 4:15; Romans 5:13 and 1 Cor 15:56.

Therefore, salvation is still by Grace through Faith alone, without the works of the law. Works cannot justify you, but only those who follow through with works can be justified. It's as simple as what the Bible says. The works themselves are not doing the justifying. But only those who do what God says can be justified, otherwise it is a deception.

You need to think deep, yet simple. One more time: You need to think outside the box. You seem to be locked into an idea that prevents you from understanding how Law and Grace interact. You are failing to comprehend how salvation can be by Grace through Faith alone, yet we still need to obey God's Holy Requirements. But it is possible for you to see how the two concepts are compatible, if you put forth effort.

As long as you continue to misunderstand that the law is but a tutor to lead us to Christ and that its work is done when we are in Christ then you will fail to ascertain what the 'works" of God actually are. Hint: you are boasting on your "proper" eating etiquette.

The law is still a tutor to lead us to Christ. The law points us to Christ. When we look at the law, we behold His Divine Character, for the Law is a transcript of God's character. Christ Jesus is a living walking manifestation of the law. The Law is Good, Holy, and Righteous. Romans 7:12. Jesus has all these attributes. We are to "walk as he walked" (1 John 2:6), we are to "follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).

Christ fulfilled the law as an example of how we are to live. He did not live a holy life in our place so that we don't have to. But He did so to prove that it could be done, and all who accept Christ's Sacrifice are crucified WITH Christ (Gal 2:20). Paul says "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ." (Gal 6:2). Therefore, to say that works are done is unbiblical. It is completely contrary to scriptures. James 1 and 2 make this brazenly clear.

Keeping the law is ALWAYS for the wrong motives since we have the ministry of the Spirit to guides us now. I do not need to be convicted of my sins by the law since the Holy Spirit is the one that convicts me of my sins. Phillippians 2:13 has nothing to do with the Mosaic law.

So when you make up your mind to honor your parents, or to do good unto others, to provide them clothing, to help the sick, to be loyal to your wife, to put God first and not put anything above Him, to refrain from lying, that this ALWAYS means that we are doing it for the wrong motives? This does not compute. Jesus says "by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matt 7:20). Of course there are those who conduct a well-ordered life on the outside, but their hearts are wicked. Such are the ones doing it for the wrong motives. But to classify everyone who is conducting good works as doing it for the wrong motives does not harmonize with Jesus' words. Also, the Holy Spirit is what convicts you to look at the law of righteousness. The Holy Spirit convicts you "this is what the law says, and you are violating it". In this sense, it is the Holy Spirit and the Law working together to convict you about sin. Do not pidgen-hole the methods God uses to convict people of sin. And do not pidgen-hole Phil. 2:13 as applying to everything "outside the Mosaic Law". Remember, in the Mosaic Law you find the commandments to love God with all your soul and mind and to love your neighbor as yourself (Deut 6:5; Lev. 19:18). These are the two principles of love that Jesus taught. They were part of the "Mosaic Law". What was abolished IN the Mosaic Law were the ceremonial shadows in the sacred seasons--rites and ceremonies--and festivals. Not moral principles that guard our health and our moral conduct with one another and toward God. You have the Moral Laws, Health Laws (which falls under the Moral Law), Civil Laws, and Hygienic Laws all inside the "Mosaic Law". Christ came to magnify the law.

The law only defines sin for the unbeliever not for the believer.

The law defines sin for the unbeliever, but why? Because he is transgressing the law. Unbelievers violate the law, therefore, the law defines sin for the unbeliever. The law is for those who transgress the law.

The Holy Spirit is the one that defines sin for the believer. Secondly, the law does not define sin for the believer since the law does not address the impurities of the heart. Many a Pharisee kept the law and yet, they were refuted by Jesus to the point of calling them unbelievers.

Every time you sin, you are showing "unbelief". Scriptures teach that the Holy Spirit also convicts the unbeliever as well. Concerning the Pharisees who did not believe in Jesus, Stephen said: "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." (Acts 7:51). Do not strain the word of God Hentenza. God has many ways of convicting of sin, and the Law is one of them.

The law is not for the believer in the sense that He is living a righteous life, and meeting its requirements, therefore, we do not need the law to define sin in our lives. But the moment we sin, we manifest "unbelief", and therefore, we come under the law again. Under its condemnation. The law now points out our sin. Only those who are in the Spirit are "subject to the law", but not the carnal mind (see Romans 8:3-10). Those who are being guided by the Spirit are subject to God's law. The Holy Spirit convicts us of our sin AGAINST the law. And then when we LOOK at the law, we see sin DEFINED. You could say...the Law convicts you of sin THROUGH the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot convict you of sin if there is no law to define what sin is.

When you panhandle the law as a necessary requirement for the Christian you are proposing a works salvation. You can deny it all you want but your actions betrays you. I have seen many an Adventist question other Christians salvation because they do not follow the Mosaic law. I just responded to law adherent that told me that eating a ham sandwich has salvific consequences and you are yet to answer the questions that I posed to you a few posts back.

Read the above verses in my response to your first quote, and then see what I mean. If you love God, you will keep the commandments (John 14:15). It's very simple. The Ten Commandments define sin. The health laws also were not shadows, but were health principles to maintain the vigor and vitality of the children of Israel. Those of us who are in Christ are of the seed of Abraham, and we likewise will follow these moral principles if we are truly saved. We do not keep the law to be saved, we keep it because we have been saved. If we do not keep them, then we are only proving we have not been saved.

You are also being misleading when you say that Adventists question someone's salvation because they do not follow the "Mosaic Law". Let's just put it this way: We say "GOD'S LAW", and many laws that were IN the Mosaic Law are STILL God's Law in the New Covenant. NUMEROUS laws that Jesus taught were part of the "Mosaic Law". We Adventists do not teach circumcision, feast keeping, sacrifices, meat offerings, burnt offerings, drink offerings, holy days, and many other small regulations that do not apply to our society. All the commandments "contained in ordinances" (Eph 2:15) have been abolished. All moral principles of health, love to our neighbor, and love to God apply (which the Ten Commandments reveal). All Jewish civil laws have ceased because the kingdom was taken from them, and we are no longer under Jewish Theocracy. Now, all punishment of violators of God's laws is in King Jesus' hand, as our King of Israel. The Capital of the saints it he New Jerusalem. We are living in the Antitypical Age--the New Covenant.

The problem with the words of Ellen White is that she was a denier of the deity of Christ and a contemporary of the likes such as Charles T. Russell. She was a confirmed false prophetess which would have been stoned outside of the gates if she would have lived during OT times. She redefines the common Christian theological words to fit her false teachings so, even though her words sound good, their meaning are not consistent with mainstream Christianity. Jesus was not a mere man but the Son of God, 100% man and 100% deity. His dual nature is necessary to atone for our sins and justify God's justice. No mere man can justify God's justice so the "Christ" that she preaches is not the Christ of scripture.

This is ad hominem. I don't care if the tooth fairy wrote what I quoted, my question to you was point blank: How can you disagree with what was written? Did you forget why I quoted her in the first place? To show you how Adventists believe the Law and Grace work together, and to prove to you that while we Adventists believe that keeping God's law is required, salvation is still by Grace through Faith alone and not the works of the law. Her entire chapter summarizes exactly how we Adventists understand it. You must contend with her arguments on their own merits, and contend with the profuse scriptures she quoted. You are being asked to contend with the arguments themselves, without any ad hominem reaction. I simply cannot word it better myself than what she stated.

Aside from the fact that you purposely diverted from the reason for me quoting her, and turned on the person rather than focusing on the argument (something you people always do), I will gently remind you that we hereby reject these accusations being made against her--that she denied the deity of Christ, etc. We disagree with these accusations, and we forthright protest against these lies that have been wrongfully and deceitfully being perpetrated against her.

If you want, we could go down the list from beginning to end, one accusation at a time, and I guarantee you that virtually every single accusation made against her writings (as well as her life) have been thoroughly dismantled, obliterated, and refuted. Numerous website and books have been put together specifically for this purpose, and the material is always readily available on the net for those who are eager to learn the truth.

Read her book Desire of Ages, and you will learn that she believed Jesus was fully God and fully Deity. For example, there is an erroneous accusation of her writings where she states: "The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty" (Letter 32, 1899)--completely taking it out of context and misunderstanding what she wrote. This false allegation is thoroughly refuted here.

And that is what happens when you quote verses devoid of context.

Acts 28
28 Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will also listen.”

I am not an Israelite. I never will be an Israelite and neither are you. Their time will come after the time of the gentiles has ended.


See above.

Nothing is out of context. My point is going right over your head. And I think you are purposely not trying to see it. Salvation is of the Jews. This "salvation" (that is of the Jews) is that salvation of God that has been sent to the Gentiles. Those Gentiles who accept and believe will be grafted into the household of God. All who are in Christ are heirs according to the promise (the promises given to Israel). ALL of God's people are as "one body" in Christ Jesus, Jew, or Gentile. Jesus is KING of Israel. When we are in Christ's kingdom, we are "Israelites indeed".

Only spiritual Israelites will be saved. If you want a full study on this, I encourage you to read the following:

Spiritual Israel.

God bless.

 

[Frogster]

The first error of your argument is that the purpose of any diet is to lose weight. A proper diet promotes healthy living.

The second error of your argument was that it was Nebuchadnezzar's plan that they would waste away. It was nebuchadnezzar's intention to feed them well and instruct them in the Chaldean ways. The person in charge of Daniel and his companions were responsible to Nebuchadnezzar for their well being and would be held accountable if they fell ill for being ill fed.

The whole incident is to reveal Daniels faith to his God and witness to his captors despite his captivity.

so what if someone lives in a city with really bad air pollution? Should everyone move out into the country to persue health, to be "holy"?

 

[Frogster]

Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and the rest of the Jews, were living as Gentiles in Antioch, not worrying about food laws. They had to be eating unclean pork, or else Paul could not confront Peter, for his regression, if Paul were living under food laws?

 

[Frogster]

Jesus told Paul, all the meat was clean. Only the weak new converts, by way of the legalists in the Roman house churches, were confused.

But we have a clear objective reality established in 14.


Rom 14;14I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So true. Sadly, what most Christians fail to understand is that most of their doctrines are built on Jesuit foundations. Since their foundations are all wrong, laid down by the Jesuits, breaking up the unity of God's people, and making Revelation belong only to the Jews, and creating a fictitious futuristic tyrant, they divide up not only God's people, but break up His laws. =/

Who or what were those guys?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7456053-3/#post54444769
Jesuits

I was reading about Ignatian spirituality when I realized that I still harbor some unconscious resentment towards the Jesuits. As an Adventist, I was taught that the Jesuits were the eyes, ears, and personal assassins of the Vatican and had infiltrated most governments and Protestant denominations--not official Adventist teaching mind you, just a product of the environment I was in. Anyway, I guess that idea has stuck in my head because whenever I hear about Jesuits I feel like they are untrustworthy. I don't want to be ruled by unconscious assumptions..

Who are the Jesuits really, and where did these stories about them originate?

 

[GQ Chris]

People, don't let the fact that this person is an SDA keep you from learning from him. He knows his stuff, and I ask that you would show respect for him, and not allow a bias against the Seventh-day Adventist church to keep you from hearing what he has to say. He is obviously gifted when it comes to interpreting Scripture.

He doesn't have "sound exegesis" and its not the fact that he is SDA that I reject what he says, it just so happens that he's just plain wrong, along with the SDA. Jewish dietary laws are no longer binding for the Christian.

 

[Strong in Him]

Salvation is of the Jews. This "salvation" (that is of the Jews) is that salvation of God that has been sent to the Gentiles.

Yes, salvation is from the Jews because Jesus is our salvation and he was born a Jew. His coming was prophesied in Jewish Scriptures; Christianity was once seen as a Jewish cult.

Jesus came for both Jews and Gentiles. His earthly ministry was primarily among the Jews, but he spoke with and healed Gentiles, and they followed him. The disciples were given the Commission to go into the world and take the Gospel to ALL. They did so; when they preached, Gentiles were converted and filled with the Holy Spirit. They then had toi have discussions about how to treat these Gentiles - i.e whether they had to be circumcised and taught to obey the law. The Council of Jerusalem said they should avoid food offered to idols, blood and the meat of strangled animals. Nothing about avoiding pork, sea food, or a lsit of unclean animals. Even so, Paul told the Corinthian church a few years later that meat offered to idols meant nothing, so they could eat it if it did not offend anyone else.

Salvation is through Jesus. He saves, pork doesn't - did I mention that?

 

[Lysimachus]

He doesn't have "sound exegesis" and its not the fact that he is SDA that I reject what he says, it just so happens that he's just plain wrong, along with the SDA. Jewish dietary laws are no longer binding for the Christian.

Give me one sound reason why God would even want to abolish the dietary laws. Please show me how they were a shadow.

 

[Lysimachus]

The Scripture is certainly worth quoting; however, there comes a point when you have to walk away from a discussion.

You are probably right Cesty. It takes a lot of time and energy to thoroughly answer people. I would say that I am guilty of violating the 6th commandment in losing a lot of sleep in feeling I have to respond to every single point. I need to learn that you can only say so much and move on. It can be lethal wearing yourself out feeling you must refute everyone. I think I will take your advice.

 

[Lysimachus]

The Council of Jerusalem said they should avoid food offered to idols, blood and the meat of strangled animals. Nothing about avoiding pork, sea food, or a lsit of unclean animals. Even so, Paul told the Corinthian church a few years later that meat offered to idols meant nothing, so they could eat it if it did not offend anyone else.

Salvation is through Jesus. He saves, pork doesn't - did I mention that?

I will close with this:

The Council of Jerusalem said nothing about the Gentiles not killing, not stealing, committing adultery, dishonoring your parents, or lying, or coveting either.

The point being: What was required of the Gentiles "in addition" to the laws they already were educated in.

Obviously, of the clean meats, do not eat any strangled animals. (this was a tradition among Gentile nations--they did this to keep the blood from draining out of the animal.)

Due to their weak consciences, avoid eating meats offered to idols.

These were not the only requirements for the Gentiles. This is obvious. Otherwise, we could easily claim they were free to violate any of the Ten Commandments, and even not love God or their neighbor for that matter! These laws concerning idols, blood, and strangling were in addition to all that they knew and followed in the moral laws. Not "the only". Preserving your body as the Temple of the Holy Ghost is a moral law. It is not the unclean meat of itself that is corruptible, it is the disease associated with it. This is what defiles the body.