why can we eat pork?

[Nazaroo]

Quoting 'proof-texts' is often unconvincing and usually artificial. Why?

Because short 'proof-texts' are seldom good for proving much more than a simple point or two, and often they are left hanging without a context. What is worse, people try to prove too much with too little.

They will try to wrestle with a complex or deeply profound issue, and having made up their mind about it, offer a few crumbs from 'texts' they think clinch their entire theological structure. Sadly, this is rarely an adequate way to support whole 'systems', and leaves others unconvinced.

I asked you to provide an example of Jesus exemplifying these things:

(1) Jesus and the Holy Spirit and God the Father consistently taught that GOOD STEWARDSHIP was a UNIVERSAL principle in ALL things, (2) and this would include not wasting food, (3) not causing needless suffering of animals, (4) not misusing good farmland, (5) poor economic planning etc.

You asked me to provide examples for my statements here.

What saddens me is that if you knew the scriptures, and the power of the Living God, you could have provided the examples yourself from memory without any effort at all.

Let's see how easy this order is to fill:


(1) Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit and the Father consistently teach good stewardship as a universal principle? Yes. Any child from sunday school class could give many examples to support this thesis, starting with the obvious:

The Parable of the Good Steward (Luke 12:35-40)

The Parable of the Bad Steward (Matt. 25:14-30)

​

From which the famous teaching of Jesus comes:

"You have been been faithful over small things:
I will make you overseer of great things:
Enter into the joy of your Lord!" (Matt 25:23)

​

The Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matt.25:1f) tells a similar tale about being responsible with what you are given.

(2) "...and this would include not wasting food..."

The obvious passages, again are:


Feeding of the 5000, Mark 6:34-44 John 6:5-15, from where we get the famous phrase:

"Gather up the fragments that remain,
so that nothing is lost!" (John 6:12)

​

(3) "...not causing needless suffering of animals..."


Again a no-brainer: Jesus takes this teaching virtually for granted in expounding the Sabbath Law:

"Which of you who has an ass or an ox fall into a pit,
will not immediately rescue it, even on the sabbath?" (Luke 14:5)

​

(4) "...Not misusing good farmland..."

In the Parable of the Sower, the 'GOOD' ground is the ground that has been properly tended and tilled. The premise is assumed, even in parables which are discussing Spiritually higher issues.

(5) "...poor economic planning..."

Well, what better illustration than the extensive discussion urging disciples to carefully 'count the cost' of all proposed future endeavours:

"For which of you, intending to build a tower, doesn't sit down first and count the cost, to plan whether he has sufficient resources to finish it?" (Luke 14:28)


​

But seriously, this was really a wasted question. You should have answered this question for yourself and left me to answer the more subtle and difficult one:



"Did Jesus teach about ecological matters?"

​

 

[OObi]

Food is what goes in, and poop is what comes out.

...you said poop

that whole post was awesome but this alone should be enough to end any and all debate about whether or not its wrong to eat certain foods

First, let me quote the same passage in a more literal translation and not this watered down one.

And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has *not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.

Okay, Many people assume that these "ordinances" that were "against us" and "contrary to us" were God's Ten Commandments. But how is God’s Moral Law "against us" and "contrary to us"? And why would Jesus spend his life preaching the Ten Commandments if they were "against us" and "contrary to us"? Besides, Paul spoke of God’s Law as holy, just, and good many years after the cross (Romans 7:7,12).

In reference to the "handwriting of ordinances...nailed...to the cross" (Colossians 2:14), the Greek word translated "handwriting" is cheirographon, and this is the only place the term is used in the scripture. It meant a handwritten record of debt, or what we would today call an IOU. In contemporary apocalyptic literature, this word was used to designate a "record book of sin," meaning a written account of our sins.


Paul was not saying that God's law was nailed to the cross. What was nailed there, he said, was all record of our sins. Because God's law required the death penalty for sin (Romans 6:23), this record is what "was against us, which was contrary to us", not the law itself. He has forgiven us all our sins (Ephesians 1:7), and redeemed us from the curse of the law (Galatians 3:13). Christ has utterly wiped out the damning evidence of broken laws and commandments which always hung over our heads, and has completely annulled it by nailing it over His own head on the cross. It is the evidence against us, not the law itself, that was nailed to the cross, enabling us to be forgiven.


This becomes clear when we read the rest of Colossians 2. It is apparent that other issues were involved that had nothing to do with God's laws given in the Old Testament. Among these were "principalities and powers" (verse 15), "false humility and worship of angels" (verse 18), forbidding to "touch, taste and handle" (verse 21) and "neglect of the body" (verse 23).
Further, Paul referred to the false teachings in Colosse as rooted in "enticing words" (verse 4), "philosophy and vain deceit" and "the tradition of men" (verse 8). He also referred to submitting to "ordinances" of this world (verse 20) and "the commandments and doctrines of men" (verse 22). Could Paul, who in Romans 7:12 said the law is "holy and just and good," possibly be referring to the same law here, or is he addressing an entirely different issue? Paul answers this in 1 Corinthians 9:21, when he said, "I am not free from God's law."

 

[intricatic]

(1) Ceremonial cleanliness is a differet matter than sin. It was a method of justification in the presence of God (whom dwelt in the tabernacle). It was a means by which, through the sprinkling of blood as an atonement to purify - which are a shadow of things to come, would sanctify the spirit. All of the ceremonial cleanliness laws are interrelated.

Leviticus 12
6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. 7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.
" 'These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.' "

Leviticus 13
56 If, when the priest examines it, the mildew has faded after the article has been washed, he is to tear the contaminated part out of the clothing, or the leather, or the woven or knitted material. 57 But if it reappears in the clothing, or in the woven or knitted material, or in the leather article, it is spreading, and whatever has the mildew must be burned with fire. 58 The clothing, or the woven or knitted material, or any leather article that has been washed and is rid of the mildew, must be washed again, and it will be clean."

Leviticus 10 24 " 'You will make yourselves unclean by these; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. 25 Whoever picks up one of their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.

Leviticus 14
28 " 'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.
31 " 'You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, which is among them.' "

Leviticus 10
24 " 'You will make yourselves unclean by these; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. 25 Whoever picks up one of their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.

Leviticus 1039 " 'If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches the carcass will be unclean till evening. 40 Anyone who eats some of the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.

Leviticus 10
41 " 'Every creature that moves about on the ground is detestable; it is not to be eaten. 42 You are not to eat any creature that moves about on the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is detestable. 43 Do not defile yourselves by any of these creatures. Do not make yourselves unclean by means of them or be made unclean by them. 44 I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground. 45 I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.


What was the intent? To show that it's impossible to remain clean; thus the need for sacrificial atonement. A mirror of things to come.

Does this mean the law that refers to purity no longer applies? Nope. But it does mean that we're already washed clean by Christ's eternal atonement, the abolition of the need for ceremonial purity.

Does this mean the rest of the law no longer applies? Nope. Dwelling in the Holy Spirit means sanctification of our desires - which does not relate to purity in the sense of ceremony and cleanliness outside, except for the spiritual purity we maintain. The body is the gate by which that purity is defiled, but it doesn't mean not eating a certain type of food, or performing any kind of ceremony or rite to purify our souls via our own means. The external purification is meaningless now.

What was Christ's sacrifice on the cross, once again? Was it to abolish the need for this, or was it to abolish the need just to make sacrifices? In which case, how does this apply to the rest of the ceremonial purity laws? Or is it just good advice to live by, in which case, what sense is there in your argument?

 

[Nazaroo]

(1) Ceremonial cleanliness is a differet matter than sin. It was a method of justification in the presence of God (whom dwelt in the tabernacle). It was a means by which, through the sprinkling of blood as an atonement to purify - which are a shadow of things to come, would sanctify the spirit. All of the ceremonial cleanliness laws are interrelated.

Leviticus 12
6 "...snip.' "

Leviticus 13
56 If, when the priest ...snip*.

Leviticus 10 24 "...snip.

Leviticus 14
...snip*

Leviticus 10
24 ..snip*

Leviticus 1039 ...snip*

Leviticus 10

...*snip*...
41 ....45 I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.


What was the intent? To show that it's impossible to remain clean; thus the need for sacrificial atonement. A mirror of things to come.

Does this mean the law that refers to purity no longer applies? Nope. But it does mean that we're already washed clean by Christ's eternal atonement, the abolition of the need for ceremonial purity.

Does this mean the rest of the law no longer applies? Nope. Dwelling in the Holy Spirit means sanctification of our desires - which does not relate to purity in the sense of ceremony and cleanliness outside, except for the spiritual purity we maintain. The body is the gate by which that purity is defiled, but it doesn't mean not eating a certain type of food, or performing any kind of ceremony or rite to purify our souls via our own means. The external purification is meaningless now.

What was Christ's sacrifice on the cross, once again? Was it to abolish the need for this, or was it to abolish the need just to make sacrifices? In which case, how does this apply to the rest of the ceremonial purity laws? Or is it just good advice to live by, in which case, what sense is there in your argument?

Just listen to yourself:

You are so 'Christianized' ('protestantized'?, 'early-fathered'?, theologized?) you are speaking in tongues. And not the tongues of angels or any comprehensible language at all.

Look at all the big meaningless words you are using, like 'justification', and 'sanctification', and 'purity', and 'ceremonial'. 'atonement', 'sprinkling', all in some secret private language only 'really' understood by your denomination or cult.

You may not have invented most of these terms, but you can be sure Jesus never used them.

What a bunch of mumbo jumbo - gobbledy ****. half or more of those 'theological' terms have never been defined well enough that even any two 'theologians' can even agree upon what they are talking about, let alone what they mean.

This is why sometimes is just better to be a simple farmer, and read the Gospels. Everything sufficient for salvation, and heck of a lot of 'simple' wisdom besides, is freely available without the babble or 'interpreting' of some priest or other weirdo.

Look what I have. A fantastic and easy to understand comprehension of the whole New Testament.

And how did I get that? By ignoring all the garbage that people wrote about it for 2000 years afterward. And my knowledge is easy to receive and easy to tell to others.

Again you have quoted a half dozen verses of Leviticus for no apparent reason. Everyone knows what the Law contains, or should - It is supposed to be read aloud every year to the whole of Israel. And kings had to copy out the entire books of the Torah before taking their office.

I personally mastered five languages just so I could read the Holy Scriptures.

And NONE of those languages were Latin. Didn't need that - Because even the New Testament was written in Greek. Why waste precious time?

What do you get by parsing twenty subtle variations of 'justification'?

What can a man gain by reading Calvin, or Thomas Aquinas? Nothing. Did Martin Luther enlighten and convert a single Jew? After writing his 'great' books full of babble, Calvin went around burning people at the stake.

Read the Bible. But strip it of all the b.s. please. If it isn't simple enough for a fisherman or a tax-collector, its crap.

The demon who drove out the seven idiot brothers in Acts will enter the kingdom of heaven before any theologian. At least he knew Paul and Jesus. What do they know?


In love,
Nazaroo

 

[intricatic]

Well, why not explain what it was for, then, instead of just making a bunch of ad-hominem jibes? Or are we still supposed to make sacrifices to ceremonially purify ourselves externally? If not, how is that different from not eating unclean meat to keep ourselves ceremonially pure?

Justification: Simple, and totally universal form of making something right by argument or action.

Sanctification: The act of purifying.

Purity: Not being defiled by something (our sin natures, perhaps?)

Ceremonial: Duh! Ritualized act of X, Y, or Z (like a sacrifice, or not eating certain things?)

Atonement: The payment of something in exchange for something else (reconciliation by putting the sins of X,Y, or Z onto a sacrificial animal in a Ceremony to cleanse the impurity from a person?).

Sprinkling: The act of throwing large gobs of jello at the computer screen for no concievable reason - oh, I mean the act of sprinkling, like the rain is sprinkling from the sky.

Why don't you address the issue?

 

[Nazaroo]

Well, at least we may now be getting somewhere, however short the distance:

Or are we still supposed to make sacrifices to ceremonially purify ourselves externally? If not, how is that different from not eating unclean meat to keep ourselves ceremonially pure?

At least now we can apparently see some of the roots of your confusion. Even in the first sentence you are making too many assumptions.

(1) you are considering at least the idea that sacrifices somehow 'ceremonially purify' their sponsors, 'externally'.

Still too much double-talk. The sacrifices may have contained symbolism, but even though they were 'shadows' of things to come as the author of Hebrews puts it, they were hardly without substance or power. Reading backward into history abstractions and ideas that weren't even in existance before NT times is anachronistic at best.

Let's simplify your question a lot further, before even trying to answer it:

What you mean to ask is,

(1) "Are we still supposed to offer sacrifices?", and,

(2) "Why is that different than keeping the food laws?".

I presume rhetorically, since we all know the answer to the first question is no, unless we are going to make an esoteric or abstract claim about 'service' as 'true self-sacrifice' to the Lord or some such allegorical blather.

But you also want an answer that makes plain why the answer to this is 'no', while the answer to question number two appears to be 'yes', for those of us who believe it to be.

So your question really, is,

(3) "Why are the sacrificial laws different than the food laws?"

And this is the nitty gritty of it.

My answer is twofold in nature:

(1) Yes, they are completely different laws, enacted for different reasons entirely.

(2) Only the 'sacrificial' laws have ended. Or rather, have been reinterpreted and held to have been fulfilled in the self-surrender of the Messiah to the Father's will for the greater good.

For even the author of Hebrews does not claim that the sacrificial laws have simply ended, as though they expired, or were made useless by the destruction of the temple.

But rather, the sacrificial Laws were fulfilled by Christ once and for all, revealing the fact that they were temporary in their first form, and really pointed forward in time to the Passion.

How this can possibly be related to the food laws, except to narrow them further, that is, restrict our legitimate diets to vegetarianism, at least for Jews, is personally beyond my comprehension. With no temple as prescribed by the 'law' preserved by the Judaean priests, and no priests to carry out proper sacrifices, there could obviously be no meat available.

If it weren't for the historical fact that early Christians have always been a boatload of rather flakey people, entertaining a variety of idiotic and obviously false ideas, I personally can't even conceive how anyone, even a midrasher like Paul, could ever have come up with such a hairbrained notion.

For strict Jews, the ending of the sacrificial temple cult could only result in the adoption of pure vegetarianism, and historically, this is largely exactly what happened.

The idea this would translate into a 'free-for-all' with Jews scarfing down roast pig to celebrate the destruction of their own cherished culture is an insane and absurd vision.

Here is the short and sweet of it:

(1) The food laws were instituted even before the flood, but were obviously disobeyed.

(2) They were known to Noah, and taught to subsequent generations millenia before there ever was an Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob.

(3) Even the Arabs (Edomites etc.) follow the food laws and always have, whatever flakey religions they embraced along the way.

(4) in the past, patriarchs carried out their own 'sacrifices', probably in imitation of Noah, and this was eventually elaborated and institutionalized by Moses.

(5) The early 'sacrifices' were probably nothing more than emergency 'happy meals' in hard times when there were no crops, like after the flood.

(6) Since the 'sacrifices' inadvertantly involved food, (so that priests could get fat and rich without working), naturally the food laws were entangled with the 'sacrifice' cult.

(7) People have always experimentally broken the basic food laws in small numbers, sometimes out of perceived necessity, with mixed and sometimes very unfortunate results.


In summary, the food laws were health and dietary laws which never ended and cannot end, until we are all ressurrected. They were NEVER 'ceremonial' until sects like the Pharisees ritualized them excessively and made them 'religious' (something Jesus dismissed as nonsense).

As we pointed out before, every animal has an ideal diet. The more you stray from it, the sicker the animal gets. Man is no exception, and this is not mere ceremony or ritual.

The sacrificial laws were a separate entity which acted as the mechanical vehicle for a continued but restricted 'omnivorism'.

Man's natural diet in the 'garden of eden' was purely vegetarian, and commiting sin could not logically lead to 'permission' to sin even more.

Emergency conditions after the flood probably required animal sacrifice, as the stowing of 'extra' clean animals indicates, and Noah seemed to have planned to kill some animals.

The 'tradition' of animal sacrifice for survival purposes had been canonized by Moses as a ritual meant to prevent Israelites from forgetting that it was a 'necessary evil' after the flood and from time to time during droughts and famines.

It was never meant to be permanent or 'ideal' as a way of life.

First the centralization of 'sacrifice' and outlawing of independant kills, and finally the destruction of the temple cult, should have ended animal killing altogether.

God promised the earth would never again be destroyed by flood, so there should be no need for ongoing 'sacrifices' except in extraordinary circumstances, like local famine.

 

[intricatic]

Well, at least we may now be getting somewhere, however short the distance:


At least now we can apparently see some of the roots of your confusion. Even in the first sentence you are making too many assumptions.

(1) you are considering at least the idea that sacrifices somehow 'ceremonially purify' their sponsors, 'externally'.

Still too much double-talk. The sacrifices may have contained symbolism, but even though they were 'shadows' of things to come as the author of Hebrews puts it, they were hardly without substance or power. Reading backward into history abstractions and ideas that weren't even in existance before NT times is anachronistic at best.

Let's simplify your question a lot further, before even trying to answer it:

What you mean to ask is,

(1) "Are we still supposed to offer sacrifices?", and,

(2) "Why is that different than keeping the food laws?".

I presume rhetorically, since we all know the answer to the first question is no, unless we are going to make an esoteric or abstract claim about 'service' as 'true self-sacrifice' to the Lord or some such allegorical blather.

But you also want an answer that makes plain why the answer to this is 'no', while the answer to question number two appears to be 'yes', for those of us who believe it to be.

So your question really, is,

(3) "Why are the sacrificial laws different than the food laws?"

And this is the nitty gritty of it.

My answer is twofold in nature:

(1) Yes, they are completely different laws, enacted for different reasons entirely.

(2) Only the 'sacrificial' laws have ended. Or rather, have been reinterpreted and held to have been fulfilled in the self-surrender of the Messiah to the Father's will for the greater good.

For even the author of Hebrews does not claim that the sacrificial laws have simply ended, as though they expired, or were made useless by the destruction of the temple.

But rather, the sacrificial Laws were fulfilled by Christ once and for all, revealing the fact that they were temporary in their first form, and really pointed forward in time to the Passion.

How this can possibly be related to the food laws, except to narrow them further, that is, restrict our legitimate diets to vegetarianism, at least for Jews, is personally beyond my comprehension. With no temple as prescribed by the 'law' preserved by the Judaean priests, and no priests to carry out proper sacrifices, there could obviously be no meat available.

If it weren't for the historical fact that early Christians have always been a boatload of rather flakey people, entertaining a variety of idiotic and obviously false ideas, I personally can't even conceive how anyone, even a midrasher like Paul, could ever have come up with such a hairbrained notion.

For strict Jews, the ending of the sacrificial temple cult could only result in the adoption of pure vegetarianism, and historically, this is largely exactly what happened.

The idea this would translate into a 'free-for-all' with Jews scarfing down roast pig to celebrate the destruction of their own cherished culture is an insane and absurd vision.

Here is the short and sweet of it:

(1) The food laws were instituted even before the flood, but were obviously disobeyed.

(2) They were known to Noah, and taught to subsequent generations millenia before there ever was an Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob.

(3) Even the Arabs (Edomites etc.) follow the food laws and always have, whatever flakey religions they embraced along the way.

(4) in the past, patriarchs carried out their own 'sacrifices', probably in imitation of Noah, and this was eventually elaborated and institutionalized by Moses.

(5) The early 'sacrifices' were probably nothing more than emergency 'happy meals' in hard times when there were no crops, like after the flood.

(6) Since the 'sacrifices' inadvertantly involved food, (so that priests could get fat and rich without working), naturally the food laws were entangled with the 'sacrifice' cult.

(7) People have always experimentally broken the basic food laws in small numbers, sometimes out of perceived necessity, with mixed and sometimes very unfortunate results.


In summary, the food laws were health and dietary laws which never ended and cannot end, until we are all ressurrected. They were NEVER 'ceremonial' until sects like the Pharisees ritualized them excessively and made them 'religious' (something Jesus dismissed as nonsense).

As we pointed out before, every animal has an ideal diet. The more you stray from it, the sicker the animal gets. Man is no exception, and this is not mere ceremony or ritual.

The sacrificial laws were a separate entity which acted as the mechanical vehicle for a continued but restricted 'omnivorism'.

Man's natural diet in the 'garden of eden' was purely vegetarian, and commiting sin could not logically lead to 'permission' to sin even more.

Emergency conditions after the flood probably required animal sacrifice, as the stowing of 'extra' clean animals indicates, and Noah seemed to have planned to kill some animals.

The 'tradition' of animal sacrifice for survival purposes had been canonized by Moses as a ritual meant to prevent Israelites from forgetting that it was a 'necessary evil' after the flood and from time to time during droughts and famines.

It was never meant to be permanent or 'ideal' as a way of life.

First the centralization of 'sacrifice' and outlawing of independant kills, and finally the destruction of the temple cult, should have ended animal killing altogether.

God promised the earth would never again be destroyed by flood, so there should be no need for ongoing 'sacrifices' except in extraordinary circumstances, like local famine.

They were quite ceremonial; they involved the same purity concept that revolved around the concept of ceremonial purity, which is dirrectly linked to ceremonial sacrificial rites. You're still jumping around in circles. You've actually stated this yourself by saying the reason God doesn't want us to eat this is because it's unclean. But what does unclean mean? It was a ceremonial pronouncement; sacrifices were made to "clean" the people who had been made "unclean" by such things. You can see this throughout the book of Leviticus, and in parts of Deuteronomy, as well elsewhere in the OT.

You're making them ceremonial now, even. The fact that they existed in the Leviticus and Deuteronomy chapters dealing with purity laws speaks to the fact that they were....ceremonial purity laws. The sacrificial laws were dirrectly tied to purity laws because the tabernacle was God's dwelling place and He didn't want his people defiled in His presence.

Leviticus 15
31 " 'You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, which is among them.' "

Unless you can explain why the "clean and unclean" pronouncements are made right in the middle of the purity laws, your points have no meaning. Is God the Father living in a Holy Place on Earth, or is Jesus our mediator - the end of ceremonial laws to justify us to Him?

 

[rstrats]

intricatic ,

re: "This is the last I'm posting on this thread [07:37 PM, 18 July]. It's absolutely silly and there's very little sense in continuing it."

re: "(1) Ceremonial cleanliness is a different matter than sin............. [10:35 PM, 18July]"


So what happened between 7:37 PM and 10:35 PM to cause the thread to lose it’s silliness and become sensible?

 

[intricatic]

intricatic ,

re: "This is the last I'm posting on this thread [07:37 PM, 18 July]. It's absolutely silly and there's very little sense in continuing it."

re: "(1) Ceremonial cleanliness is a different matter than sin............. [10:35 PM, 18July]"


So what happened between 7:37 PM and 10:35 PM to cause the thread to lose it’s silliness and become sensible?

I dunno, that's a good question.

 

[Blank123]

Look at all the big meaningless words you are using, like 'justification', and 'sanctification', and 'purity', and 'ceremonial'. 'atonement', 'sprinkling', all in some secret private language only 'really' understood by your denomination or cult.

You may not have invented most of these terms, but you can be sure Jesus never used them.

do you realize just how weak of an argument that is? The word 'Trinity' isn't found anywhere in the Bible yet I'm sure you still believe in the Trinity and refer to it as such, no?

anydoodle... Jesus may not have used those words Himself but they are found in Scripture.

13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all 17 (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations") in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; 18 who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.” 19 And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. 20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification. - Romans 4:13-25


12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) - Romans 5:12-17

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”
13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. - Galatians 3:10-14

For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence. 30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— 31 that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.” - 1 Corinthians 1:26-31

Finally then, brethren, we urge and exhort in the Lord Jesus that you should abound more and more, just as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God; 2 for you know what commandments we gave you through the Lord Jesus.
3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified. 7 For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness. 8 Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us His Holy Spirit. - 1 Thess. 4:1-8

But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, 17 comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work. - 2 Thess 2:13-16

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:

Grace to you and peace be multiplied. - 1 Peter 1:1-2 (whoa... that one mentioned sprinkling AND sanctification in the same passage )

I could go on but I think you see my point. It's much better for your argument if you address the issues presented head-on rather than pushing them aside on the basis that Jesus never used those words

 

[OObi]

He didn't mean that in the way you are saying. What he meant was that intricatic was going on and on about some ritual purity thing, never really clarifying what she was talking about, and only confusing the issue.

What I got from all of her posts was that we don't need to follow God's law because they make us "ritually pure" and we don't need to be "pure" anymore? (I don't know, ask her)

What I say is this, God gave us laws. We are supposed to follow them. If God ever changed His mind, He would have told us, and told us very bluntly. No one has shown me where in the scriptures God had changed His mind about His laws. Some have attempted, no doubt, but they were just not reading into the context of the verses, as I have shown them so. My arguments are all still there, and if anyone finds fault with them, then please bring it up. However, untill then, I'm sorry, but "we don't need to be ritually pure" isn't a good enough reason for people to start throwing out God's laws.

Im Christ, OObi

 

[Blank123]

He didn't mean that in the way you are saying. What he meant was that intricatic was going on and on about some ritual purity thing, never really clarifying what she was talking about, and only confusing the issue.

What I got from all of her posts was that we don't need to follow God's law because they make us "ritually pure" and we don't need to be "pure" anymore? (I don't know, ask her)

she's a he

my point still stands however. Intricatic made some valid points that were thrown out merely on the basis that Jesus never used such and such a term and theologians can't agree on what those terms mean. Sorry but theologians can't even agree on whether or not Christ was God - they'll be debating that until the end of time That doesn't mean anything though.

I don't know about you guys but I am pure in the eyes of God because I have been washed in the blood of the Lamb. I don't need to follow a special diet in order to be pure before God. As intricatic has clearly pointed out - everything has been fulfilled in Christ and taken care of at the cross.

 

[rstrats]

little_tigress


re: "...everything has been fulfilled in Christ and taken care of at the cross."

Is the requirement to "Honor your father and your mother..." included in the everything? And if so, how has that been taken care of?

 

[Nazaroo]

do you realize just how weak of an argument that is? The word 'Trinity' isn't found anywhere in the Bible yet I'm sure you still believe in the Trinity and refer to it as such, no?

Trinity shminity. more gobbledy goock.


I don't 'believe in the Trinity'.

I entrust myself to Jesus.

I wouldn't know if there were two, three, or 153 'persons' in the Godhead.

This is not an essential Christian doctrine, nor one that even theologians can properly explain to anyone but themselves in the mirror.

I don't 'disbelieve' in the Trinity either.

It just doesn't come up at all when I am reading the New Testament.

I don't need a word like 'Trinity' at all.

I have a big enough vocabulary as it is, and I don't need that word to understand the gospel.

anydoodle... Jesus may not have used those words Himself but they are found in Scripture.

13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all 17 (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations") in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; 18 who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.” 19 And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. 20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification. - Romans 4:13-25


12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) - Romans 5:12-17

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”
13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. - Galatians 3:10-14

For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence. 30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— 31 that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.” - 1 Corinthians 1:26-31

Finally then, brethren, we urge and exhort in the Lord Jesus that you should abound more and more, just as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God; 2 for you know what commandments we gave you through the Lord Jesus.
3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified. 7 For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness. 8 Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us His Holy Spirit. - 1 Thess. 4:1-8

But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, 17 comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work. - 2 Thess 2:13-16

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:

Grace to you and peace be multiplied. - 1 Peter 1:1-2 (whoa... that one mentioned sprinkling AND sanctification in the same passage )

I could go on but I think you see my point. It's much better for your argument if you address the issues presented head-on rather than pushing them aside on the basis that Jesus never used those words

I have taken the time to mark in big red letters all the places in this 'translation' that have been left deliberately obscure or turned into gobbledy-goock by the elite priestly class of hypocritical frauds posing as religious people.

As a person fluent in both Greek and English, I can tell you that these words have been left obscure, and have been deliberately weighed down with the theological baggage of the Ages, by Platonistic philosophers and phoney rich people posing as religious leaders.

Lets start with the obvious.

(1) 'The Law' : Paul certainly doesn't mean either the modern meaning of 'law' or the classical Greek meaning of 'nomoV'. Paul almost always refers to the Torah in these passages, and the sense is rarely 'law' alone.

NomoV = Torah, not 'law'

(2) 'Faith' : Here again, a simple word with a clear range of meanings has been converted by the Reformation and subsequent theology into its OPPOSITE.

"pistoV" in Greek means one of three things, loyalty, trustworthiness, or faithfulness, NOT 'faith', as in the modern readers' assumption that it is a synonym or abstract noun for 'belief'. This is just Protestant obfuscation and b.s.

(3) 'Grace' : another word now loaded with theological leaven and mold. The Greek simply means 'mercy', as any farmer can understand. No need for special 'technical' double-talk.

These are just examples of the mind-numbing nonsense that all modern translations are loaded down with, and which translators will not willingly correct, because those who have become rich living off the backs of the poor have too much of their planned future leisure riding upon keeping their SLOTH and GLUTTONY concealed.

For the rest, here's a good general rule:

Never use a FIVE-SYLLABLE word, where a ONE-SYLLABLE word will do. Otherwise, just go shoot yourself or quit pretending to translate the Holy Scriptures and get a real job.

 

[intricatic]

Okay, question of clarity. Please provide the scripture that you're relying on for this as-to-now unsubstantiated "clean/unclean" standard for food and explain what it means.

 

[Blank123]

Trinity shminity. more gobbledy goock.


I don't 'believe in the Trinity'.

I entrust myself to Jesus.

I wouldn't know if there were two, three, or 153 'persons' in the Godhead.

This is not an essential Christian doctrine, nor one that even theologians can properly explain to anyone but themselves in the mirror.

actually I would say it is quite essential - otherwise how do you know what G/god you're worshipping? Its not that hard to prove either throughout the OT and NT. Again - who cares what theoligians say? You've said that all that matters is what the Bible says, so why do you keep bringing theologians into things to back up your points? Back them up using Scripture.

 

[Nazaroo]

Okay, question of clarity. Please provide the scripture that you're relying on for this as-to-now unsubstantiated "clean/unclean" standard for food and explain what it means.

This is a good question and an easy one:

(1) Animals are classified as 'clean' and 'unclean' as early as Genesis 7:2. There, God commands Noah to take SEVEN pairs of clean animals, and ONE pair of unclean animals. A quick check of the Hebrew usage indicates the 'beasts' are general livestock/cattle, such as would be husbanded, or herded, or kept for milk/cheese production.

(2) There are only two or three basic ways to handle this story:

a) We can chop it up into 'J' and 'E' portions, as the 19th century German critics did, claiming that it is actually a 'blending' of two different accounts, one supplied by priests or Levites, and that the whole story is a very late insertion into the 'book' of Genesis, which took its final form according to critics around the time of Jeremiah, or

b) We can assume that the original format has been lost, and that Rabbinical (or probably more ancient) commentary has been incorporated into the main text from the margin, or

c) We can accept the Holy Scripture as it has been given and assume it is a fairly unified narrative, with explanatory pauses by the writer. IF we take this position, we might as well accept the whole text as very ancient and possibly originating in the historical incident.
​

That's what Jesus did: (c),. Jesus referred to the story of Noah as a real historical event, and showed no indication that we should mistrust any of its details. The version Jesus was using is essentially the one we have now.

Thus as far as excluding most animals from human diet, and classification of a few as 'clean' for the purposes of eating, we can establish the existance of the food laws from before (Genesis 7:2) the Great Flood.

The Food Laws are fleshed out in greater detail in Leviticus, but these show no indication of being 'new' instructions, but rather appear to be specialized knowledge preserved by the Levites for their use and the use of the Priests, in maintaining a healthy community. They may have even been partly inherited from Egyptian practices, like shaving, and circumcision.

Thus the 'food laws' were not given only to Israelites, or 'invented by the Jews'.

 

[vaman]

Being a newbie on here and after reading all the arguments back and forth as to who is right and who is wrong…I have a question. It’s not about eating pork but it is about the Law. Does all this mean I have to be circumcised to be saved? Isn’t that part of the Law? Do I have to keep that?

 

[intricatic]

Yes, but they're stated in Leviticus and explained in detail, which is what Judaic kosher laws are taken from. The Genesis account isn't something worthy of working from because of it's vague nature. I presume you follow all of the cleanliness laws? Also, did you need to read anything by any theologians to get this information?

You also realize that circumcision was the symbol of the first covenant, and according to the law in the Bible, these ideas were straight from God in His tabernacle, no? Would a farmer be able to understand where you're getting this information from?

Also, did this have anything to do with God's dynamics when dealing with mankind? This doesn't negate any of the points I made, because it's still pre-Christ [before Christ became our mediator and abolished the need for traditional works-based purity justification which was replaced by His Grace and the law of Faith].

 

[Nazaroo]

Being a newbie on here and after reading all the arguments back and forth as to who is right and who is wrong…I have a question. It’s not about eating pork but it is about the Law. Does all this mean I have to be circumcised to be saved? Isn’t that part of the Law? Do I have to keep that?

The short answer is no.

You don't have to be circumcised or keep the food laws to be 'saved'.

But the whole point about Christianity for ADULTS is that being 'saved' is only square one.

How about being useful, as well as being saved?

Are Christians supposed to stand around like a bunch of idiots after they are saved? No.

They are supposed to (motivated by gratitude from God's loving mercy etc., see Luke 7:36-50 for instance) be USEFUL, and WORKING, and SOBER...

Producing good fruits of repentance and the Spirit of the Lord, which would be a life of service, not a life of pleasing oneself.

The point is, we can get BEYOND spiritual MILK, and get into something helpful and useful to others.

The food laws are a case in point.

Jesus said a well instructed scribe is able to bring forth good things, both old and new.

To put it bluntly, if I as a Christian Leader, and preacher tell thousands of people that they can do anything they like, and eat anything they like, and 20 years from now, at the age of 60 or so they are all dying of diabetes and stomach cancer, I HAVE FAILED THEM. Who is God going to hold accountable for that horrific stupidity? My victims, or me?

On the other hand, if I tell people of the benefits of God's instruction, and prove those benefits to others by living them myself, I may instead save thousands from needless ill-health and suffering, (not to mention public health costs), and they will be ready and able to do GOOD WORK for God's Kingdom.

You choose.

Looks like a no-brainer to me.