Which Abominations are OK?

[HARK!]

That's an interesting point. There was no death until creation was corrupted. No death, no need for scavengers.

Eating flesh began only after the corruption.

I've often wondered if eating flesh was the corruption. Shortly after eating, in rebellion to YHWH's command, Adam is wearing a dead animal.

 

[Der Alte]

This is easy:
Luke–Acts can also be seen as a defense of (or "apology" for) the Jesus movement addressed to the Jews: the bulk of the speeches and sermons in Acts are addressed to Jewish audiences, with the Romans serving as external arbiters on disputes concerning Jewish customs and law.[5]
Acts of the Apostles - Wikipedia
It wasn't addressed to Pagans. The message was directed at Jews, who had turned to become part of Israel, and how they should respond to Pagans who were turning to become part of Israel.
YHWH never called Pagans, who were turning to him, an abomination.
See: The mixed multitude at Sinai, also see Ruth.

Wiki? You have got to be kidding. Every paragraph of that article has [Edit] links. Anybody can change, add to, delete anything without any control.
So your argument is that no former pagan gentile Christians ever heard or read Acts? How about these gentiles? And how about all the gentiles who have heard a read Acts since then?

Acts of the apostles 10:44-45
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts of apostles 10:48
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.​

 

[HARK!]

Wiki? You have got to be kidding. Every paragraph of that article has [Edit] links. Anybody can change, add to, delete anything without any control.

Reference cited my friend:

Pickett, Raymond (2011). "Luke and Empire: An Introduction". In Rhoads, David; Esterline, David; Lee, Jae Won (eds.). Luke–Acts and Empire: Essays in Honor of Robert L. Brawley. Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Details matter.

 

[HARK!]

So your argument is that no former pagan gentile Christians ever heard or read Acts?

So your counterargument is a strawman argument?

Personally, I would go with a different approach.

Strawman arguments tend to throw us off of logical conclusions.

 

[Der Alte]

Reference cited my friend:
Pickett, Raymond (2011). "Luke and Empire: An Introduction". In Rhoads, David; Esterline, David; Lee, Jae Won (eds.). Luke–Acts and Empire: Essays in Honor of Robert L. Brawley. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Details matter.

In fact facts do matter. You quoted Wiki which was quoting some other guy who was in turn quoting some other guys. Pg. 6 of your link.

In his reading of the Gospel of Luke in Jesus, Politics, and Society: A Study of Luke’s Gospel. Cassidy was ahead of his time inasmuch as thoroughgoing political readings did not begin to impact New Testament interpretation until the early 1990s. we will return to that shift shortly. First, however. it is necessary to demonstrate why it is untenable to adopt the view that Luke takes a positive stance towards the Roman Empire as such, neither does Luke-Acts consistently portray the Roman Empire.
In his 2002 essay “The State They were In: Luke’s view of the Roman Empire:” Steve Walton summarizes and critically engages five perspectives on Luke-Acts.’ Walton offers counterpoints to those who attribute to Luke a pro-imperial point of view. He points out that even though Luke is the only Gospel to set the story of Jesus and the Jesus movement on a political stage by naming the Roman rulers and officials (Luke 2:1-2; 3:1-2; Acts 18:12-17: 21-22; 23:31-24:6; 24:27-26:32: 27:1. 11. 31). the benefits of the pax Romana are never explicitly mentioned. ​

Now tell me again exactly what this is evidence of? The unsupported opinions of 3 guys I never heard of maybe? How about some credible, verifiable, historical evidence etc. of something?

 

[Der Alte]

So your counterargument is a strawman argument?
Personally, I would go with a different approach.
Strawman arguments tend to throw us off of logical conclusions.

In addition to not knowing what constitutes evidence you do not seem to know what a strawman argument is.
My post addressed this erroneous comment.

"It wasn't addressed to Pagans. The message was directed at Jews, who had turned to become part of Israel, and how they should respond to Pagans who were turning to become part of Israel."​

 

[HARK!]

In fact facts do matter. You quoted Wiki which was quoting some other guy who was in turn quoting some other guys. Pg. 6 of your link.

In his reading of the Gospel of Luke in Jesus, Politics, and Society: A Study of Luke’s Gospel. Cassidy was ahead of his time inasmuch as thoroughgoing political readings did not begin to impact New Testament interpretation until the early 1990s. we will return to that shift shortly. First, however. it is necessary to demonstrate why it is untenable to adopt the view that Luke takes a positive stance towards the Roman Empire as such, neither does Luke-Acts consistently portray the Roman Empire.
In his 2002 essay “The State They were In: Luke’s view of the Roman Empire:” Steve Walton summarizes and critically engages five perspectives on Luke-Acts.’ Walton offers counterpoints to those who attribute to Luke a pro-imperial point of view. He points out that even though Luke is the only Gospel to set the story of Jesus and the Jesus movement on a political stage by naming the Roman rulers and officials (Luke 2:1-2; 3:1-2; Acts 18:12-17: 21-22; 23:31-24:6; 24:27-26:32: 27:1. 11. 31). the benefits of the pax Romana are never explicitly mentioned. ​

Now tell me again exactly what this is evidence of? The unsupported opinions of 3 guys I never heard of maybe? How about some credible, verifiable, historical evidence etc. of something?

LOL! I see. Now you want to rely on scripture. Well we already went over that. YHWH pulled up the sheet before Peter got even a taste. Then Peter went bragging that he NEVER ate anything unclean.

Thems the facts.

 

[HARK!]

In addition to not knowing what constitutes evidence you do not seem to know what a strawman argument is.

Yes I do; but we digress.

Would you care to tell me now which abominations YHWH says are OK?

 

[Der Alte]

LOL! I see. Now you want to rely on scripture. Well we already went over that. YHWH pulled up the sheet before Peter got even a taste. Then Peter went bragging that he NEVER ate anything unclean.
Thems the facts.

I said "credible, verifiable, historical evidence" you do know what that is don't you? I'll tell you what it is not. It is not one guy quoting another guy who is in turn quoting another guy etc. etc.
By quoting 2-3 words out-of-context you are ignoring a very important fact.

Acts of the apostles 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. ​

I don't remember reading where the voice from heaven said "Peter I'm not talking about eating, I'm talking about people being cleansed.",

Acts of the apostles 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. ​

Help me out here, where did Peter say anything about people being common or unclean? Was Peter referring to people when he said "I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean?" Or was he talking about "all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air." in the sheet let down from heaven?
Where did God say that any group of people were common or unclean that God had to cleanse them? Unless there was any group(s) of people that God had declared unclean God would not have to "cleanse" them. vs. 15.

 

[Der Alte]

Yes I do; but we digress.
Would you care to tell me now which abominations YHWH says are OK?

Let's deal with one thing at a time.

 

[nolidad]

YHWH didn't create scavengers to be received with thanksgiving. He made them to clean up the trash.

Thats your opinion not Gods!

1 Timothy 4 King James Version (KJV)
4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

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.

4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

You don't want to eat a crow? don't! But don't say God forbids all to when the Word is as clear as the nose on your face!

 

[HARK!]

abstain from meats, which God hath created

You don't want to eat a crow? don't! But don't say God forbids all to when the Word is as clear as the nose on your face!

YHWH never called crow, meat. He didn't call the nose on my face meat either; so don't go thinking it's OK to receive it with thanksgiving.

I didn't say that YHWH forbids all. That's another misinterpretation.

I'll just stick with what YHWH actually says; Thanks.

 

[nolidad]

YHWH never called crow, meat. He didn't call the nose on my face meat either; so don't go thinking it's OK to receive it with thanksgiving.

I didn't say that YHWH forbids all. That's another misinterpretation.

I'll just stick with what YHWH actually says; Thanks.

And I stick with what God has said! and He has said this:

1 Timothy 4:1-4 King James Version (KJV)
4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

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.

4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Every creature (not some or most) are good! Nothing (unless they changed the definition in Jesus day, nothing means 0) to be refuseD1

If you wish not to eat certain things, that is your privilege and right! But if you demand that believers adhere to your conscience on this- you must be opposed!

 

[Dkh587]

Changing the maening of Scripture like you just did is dangerous!

Paul wa writing to Timothy to teach Gentiles!!!! They had no knowledge of clean and unclean!

Adding to Pauls passages to gentiles is very very disingenuous. YOu make so many assumptions upon the Word of God!

Paul taught the whole Mosaic Law was no longer in effect and was never intended for gentiles as gentiles! That went for the Jews as well for righteousness . Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to all who believe!

YOu cannot find one passage where Paul orders gentiles to follow th eMosaic dietary laws.

Galatians 2:11-16 King James Version (KJV)
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

If you wish to follow the dietary laws as a matter of personal conviction--God Bless youand go for ti! But if you seek to compel anyone else to do the same- You are to be resisted at all costs for promulgating doctrines of demons as Paul directly said in Timothy!

Your only argument comes from supposing on the passages things that do not appear anywhere in Scripture!

Encouraging the body of Messiah to not eat animals that God said are abominable to eat is not "promulgating doctrines of demons". God forbad his people to eat unclean animals in Leviticus 11. You may want to reconsider your position, because, according to your position, Leviticus 11 is a doctrine of demons.

Teaching disobedience to God's commandments is what the devil does. He doesn't teach obedience to God's commandments.

Are you teaching obedience or disobedience?

 

[HARK!]

If you wish not to eat certain things, that is your privilege and right! But if you demand that believers adhere to your conscience on this- you must be opposed!

I don't command anything of believers. YHWH does.

It is written in YHWH's Torah. It speaks of Messiah who was obedient to YHWH's Torah. He set an example for us to follow. We can still find the example outlined in the Torah

Speaking of conscience, YHWH says that he will put his Torah on our comprehension.

 

[Religiot]

How do we know which abominations are OK with YHWH, and which ones he finds abominable?

For example:

Leviticus 11:12 King James Version (KJV)
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.


Eating shrimp is an abomination according to Leviticus.

Leviticus 18:22 King James Version (KJV)
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

So is homosexuality according to Leviticus.

How do we know where to draw the line?

None.

 

[Tone]

For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer

(Emphasis Mine)

That bolded phrase is very important to understand. What does it mean to be "sanctified by the word"?

 

[nolidad]

(Emphasis Mine)

That bolded phrase is very important to understand. What does it mean to be "sanctified by the word"?

hagiazō ἅγιος (G40)
Greek Inflections of ἁγιάζω ἁγιάζει — 1x
ἁγιάζεται — 1x
ἁγιαζόμενοι — 1x
ἁγιαζομένους — 1x
ἁγιάζον — 1x
ἁγιάζω — 1x
ἁγιάζων — 2x
ἁγιάσαι — 1x
ἁγιάσατε — 1x
ἁγιάσῃ — 2x
ἁγιασθήτω — 3x
ἁγίασον — 1x
ἡγίασεν — 1x
ἡγιάσθη — 1x
ἡγιάσθητε — 1x
ἡγιασμένη — 1x
ἡγιασμένοι — 2x
ἠγίασμένοις — 1x
ἡγιασμένοις — 3x
ἡγιασμένον — 1x
ἡγίασται — 2x
Dictionary Aids
Vine's Expository Dictionary: sanctify (26x), hallow (2x), be holy (1x).

1. to render or acknowledge, or to be venerable or hallow
   
   
2. to separate from profane things and dedicate to God
   
   1. consecrate things to God
      
      
   2. dedicate people to God
      
3. to purify
   
   
   1. to cleanse externally
      
      
   2. to purify by expiation: free from the guilt of sin
      
      
   3. to purify internally by renewing of the soul
      

So every food is made holy or pure or clean by prayer and nothing to be refused.

 

[Tone]

hagiazō ἅγιος (G40)
Greek Inflections of ἁγιάζω ἁγιάζει — 1x
ἁγιάζεται — 1x
ἁγιαζόμενοι — 1x
ἁγιαζομένους — 1x
ἁγιάζον — 1x
ἁγιάζω — 1x
ἁγιάζων — 2x
ἁγιάσαι — 1x
ἁγιάσατε — 1x
ἁγιάσῃ — 2x
ἁγιασθήτω — 3x
ἁγίασον — 1x
ἡγίασεν — 1x
ἡγιάσθη — 1x
ἡγιάσθητε — 1x
ἡγιασμένη — 1x
ἡγιασμένοι — 2x
ἠγίασμένοις — 1x
ἡγιασμένοις — 3x
ἡγιασμένον — 1x
ἡγίασται — 2x
Dictionary Aids
Vine's Expository Dictionary: sanctify (26x), hallow (2x), be holy (1x).

1. to render or acknowledge, or to be venerable or hallow
   
   
2. to separate from profane things and dedicate to God
   1. consecrate things to God
      
      
   2. dedicate people to God
3. to purify
   
   1. to cleanse externally
      
      
   2. to purify by expiation: free from the guilt of sin
      
      
   3. to purify internally by renewing of the soul

So every food is made holy or pure or clean by prayer and nothing to be refused.

"Sanctified by the word" it was set apart by the word. What is this word, is it the Torah?

 

[Dkh587]

LOL! I see. Now you want to rely on scripture. Well we already went over that. YHWH pulled up the sheet before Peter got even a taste. Then Peter went bragging that he NEVER ate anything unclean.

Thems the facts.

And to top it off, it was a vision. There weren't really any animals to actually eat.

The issue wasn't the unclean animals, it was the clean animals that Peter was rejecting, and calling them common. The focus wasn't the unclean animals. That was a no brainer.

What did the voice say?

What God has cleansed, do not call COMMON.