Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Context for Mark 7 is about eating wheat/bread not about eating rats, or cats, or dogs, or bats.
============= Mark 7:1-19
Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. 2 Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault.
- (The word is baptize - they had not ceremonially cleansed their hands from the supposed "sin" that would be on them by the act of buying food in the market place where gentiles were present. A "tradition" of the Jews nothing at all like that in the Bible. This is not even remotely connected to eating rats. )
Mark 7
3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.
- (Ceremonial washing - a tradition not a command in the Bible regarding the marketplace and/or sin getting on something from the marketplace.)
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”
6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
- ( Commandment of God = Moses said = "Word of God", according to Christ in Mark 7)
14 When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: 15 There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. 16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”
17 When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. 18 So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, purifying all foods?”
===========
They were not arguing that if you first wash a rat then it is fine to eat it otherwise it is defiled.
Inserting that sort of thing into this text is not warranted, not logical.
Acts 10 Peter affirms that even as late as that date - he was not eating rats.
Not at all. My daughter is a primary care physician (all that Asian ancestry showing through). We were eating tacos. She ordered tacos al pastor, made with pork. Based on this ridiculous thread, I asked her if she thought eating pork was unhealthy. She said, and I quote, "No", and then offered the opinion that it was probably less dangerous than beef.
Acts 10 does not clarify,
and since Mark 7 and Romans 14 says "all foods"
Romans 14:20 does not say that. Would you prefer to have quoted it?
13 Therefore let’s not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this: not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s or sister’s way. 14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to the one who thinks something is unclean, to that person it is unclean. 15 For if because of food your brother or sister is hurt, you are no longer walking in accordance with love. Do not destroy with your choice of food that person for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For the one who serves Christ in this way is acceptable to God and approved by other people. 19 So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. 20 Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the person who eats and causes offense. 21 It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother or sister stumbles. 22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is the one who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But the one who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin. Romans 14:13-22
Now you're actually making me laugh with such a made-up story!
Scavenger meat is more healthy than non-scavenger meat that eats grains??? That false statement mocks the list of clean vs. unclean foods that my Heavenly Father Himself set forth for man.
Romans 14 is about the issue between vegetables-only vs meat which had come up with more detail in 1 Cor 8 and 1Cor 10. But in Rom 14 it does not specify what the issue is between vegetables-only vs meat.
There was no OT issue about being a vegetarian vs also eating meat. Rom 14 is not dealing with different meats but rather vegetarian vs meat. In the OT observing Passover required the eating of meat.
As 1 Cor 8 and 1 Cor 10 point out -- it was only the newly converted gentiles/pagans that were arguing for vegetables-only not the Jews.
I can understand why you view our differences as irreconcilable. But people's views and understanding of scripture can change.Therein lies the difference between us, and thus, the constant misunderstanding.
I hold that adultery and fornication, and cannibalism, are wrong, solely because God says so: any further realizations on my part as to why they should be forbidden, are strictly subsequent to the real reason, God's word.
Can you now see, that our differences are irreconcilable?
PS: Thank you for your honesty, it greatly facilitates the conversation: I hope others here will follow your example.
I was referring to the legalistic teaching given to Christians that says every sin must be confessed and asked forgiveness for per each occurrence for them to go to heaven.
You asked, I gave you the Scripture that teaches what I said. You cannot put a legalist bent on this.
In Luke 11 Christ's disciples asked Him 'how' to pray, and Jesus gave them The LORD's Prayer, in which we ask forgiveness of our sins, and also for us to forgive those who sin against us.
In 1 John 1, he is talking to believing brethren, and is rebuking those who say they have no sin anymore. And he is giving us a method of staying in Christ's Grace by asking forgiveness of future sin, telling us that Christ is faithful to forgive us, and cleanse us of the sin.
does not clarify what? "the creeping things"?? the rats?
The "all foods" statement in Mark 7 is an insert - and the NASB 1955 translators note it right in the text.
Romans 14 is about the issue between vegetables-only vs meat which had come up with more detail in 1 Cor 8 and 1Cor 10. But in Rom 14 it does not specify what the issue is between vegetables-only vs meat.
There was no OT issue about being a vegetarian vs also eating meat. Rom 14 is not dealing with different meats but rather vegetarian vs meat. In the OT observing Passover required the eating of meat.
I will take Scripture at face value.
You asked, I gave you the Scripture that teaches what I said. You cannot put a legalist bent on this.
In Luke 11 Christ's disciples asked Him 'how' to pray, and Jesus gave them The LORD's Prayer, in which we ask forgiveness of our sins, and also for us to forgive those who sin against us.
In 1 John 1, he is talking to believing brethren, and is rebuking those who say they have no sin anymore. And he is giving us a method of staying in Christ's Grace by asking forgiveness of future sin, telling us that Christ is faithful to forgive us, and cleanse us of the sin.
Farm raised pigs are fed grain.
Unless you can prove he is lying, you shouldn't accuse him of being a liar.
I didn't call him a liar. It was someone else he claimed made the statement that pork is healthier than beef, which of course is a lie.
Not at all. My daughter is a primary care physician (all that Asian ancestry showing through). We were eating tacos. She ordered tacos al pastor, made with pork. Based on this ridiculous thread, I asked her if she thought eating pork was unhealthy. She said, and I quote, "No", and then offered the opinion that it was probably less dangerous than beef.
Now you're actually making me laugh with such a made-up story!
The prayer in Luke 11 was taught by Jesus to His disciples who were not yet Christians.
Their sins had not yet been forgiven since Jesus was not yet crucified. It is wrong for Christians to ask for forgiveness of their sins when their sins have already been forgiven.
1 John 1 was not written to believers. John would not write this to anyone who was already a believer, "What we have seen and heard we announce to you too, so that you may have fellowship with us (and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ) 1 John 1:3
You accused him of lying about a conversation he had with his daughter.
The youtube video you posted didn't in any way prove that Jipsah lied about the conversation.
Also, what does any of this have to do with the OP?
Also, what does any of this have to do with the OP?
Shouldn't just pull out small lines to quote without including what the subject was about. Doing that shows lack of trustfulness.
Wrong. Christ's chosen Apostles, along with the OT prophets, represented the early 'foundation' of Christ's Church; that per Apostle Paul here...
Eph 2:19-20
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone;
KJV
Why would Apostle Paul say that about Lord Jesus' chosen 12 Apostles? Because of this...
1 Cor 12:27-28
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
KJV
That's not about some later apostolic idea after Antioch when the label Christian was first used per Acts 11, that's about Christ's chosen 12 Apostles He chose in the beginning. In John 17, Jesus declares His Apostles with Him at the first that they were 'sent' into the world, that they originally belonged to The Father and The Father gave them to Jesus!
Christians? The Apostles represented the early foundation... of Christ's Church, and per Acts 11 they were active with Antioch too.
You cannot use that, since Paul showed the place the Apostles had in Christ's Church in the beginning. You should read that Ephesians 2:19-20 and 1 Cor.12:27-28 Scripture over and over until you understand it. Then study John 17.
John wrote that to believers on Christ, not non-believers. Those you listen to and heed can say it wasn't all they want, but they show they are going against that 1 John 1 Chapter.
One of the ways the hirelings tries to get around a Scripture's Message is by being 'selective' with pulling out verses, and then applying what they want the verse to mean, which is all you did.
Here's the rest... of the story, as Paul Harvey used to say:
1 John 1:4-10
4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
That whose joy may be full? That's not what a believer says to a non-Christian. It's what brethren leaders (like Apostle John) say to other believing brethren (2 Corinthians 1:24; Philippians 1:25; 2 John 12).
5 This then is the message which we have heard of Him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.
And the Message to those from John: If WHO says they have fellowship with Him, but walk in darkness and do not the truth??? Would the non-believer say they have fellowship with Christ??? No, of course not! But the 'believer' would say that. This is so simple that John is speaking to believers on Christ Jesus.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.
KJV
That obviously is a Message to brethren in Christ Jesus, not the unbelieving. It is utter ignorance to think otherwise.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?