PDA

View Full Version : Swine Sausage - Sin?



Pages : [1] 2

6days
July 19th, 2015, 05:10 PM
I'm surprised to discover that there are people who use the Bible to say that certain foods, such as pork, are unclean and sinful. Various verses seem to clearly indicate we can't defile ourselves by the type of food we eat.

Ex...Mark 7:18-19King James Version (KJV)
18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

I was using Acts 10, Peters vision, to show that there is no unclean foods. The counter argument is that the food in Acts 10 in only to be taken metaphorically.

What say you.... is it a sin to eat oysters, pork, *blood sausage, head cheese etc?

Bright Raven
July 19th, 2015, 05:15 PM
I'm surprised to discover that there are people who use the Bible to say that certain foods, such as pork, are unclean and sinful. Various verses seem to clearly indicate we can't defile ourselves by the type of food we eat.

Ex...Mark 7:18-19King James Version (KJV)
18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

I was using Acts 10, Peters vision, to show that there is no unclean foods. The counter argument is that the food in Acts 10 in only to be taken metaphorically.

What say you.... is it a sin to eat oysters, pork, *blood sausage, head cheese etc?

Peters vision proclaims all thing clean.

aikido7
July 19th, 2015, 05:18 PM
I'm surprised to discover that there are people who use the Bible to say that certain foods, such as pork, are unclean and sinful. Various verses seem to clearly indicate we can't defile ourselves by the type of food we eat.

Ex...Mark 7:18-19King James Version (KJV)
18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

I was using Acts 10, Peters vision, to show that there is no unclean foods. The counter argument is that the food in Acts 10 in only to be taken metaphorically.

What say you.... is it a sin to eat oysters, pork, *blood sausage, head cheese etc?What we categorize as sinful is not necessarily sinful to others in different denominations or different faiths.

It's interesting to me that I can chalk up differences between and among others as part of our shared reality and don't get too upset at differences in details. I try to focus on the underlying patterns and structures that unite all those serious about their beliefs.

Of course, I also need to be open as I can to focused criticism of my stance. I can never truly assert that I am right and others are wrong.

WonderfulLordJesus
July 19th, 2015, 05:28 PM
I've never seen Peter's vision as being about unclean food, that is about diet, at all, as scripture bears out, when you read the rest of Acts 10.

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

The entire lesson isn't about diet, but about not considering the Gentiles unclean, or any person unclean, that the God of the New Covenant is the God of all. (Though one can also conclude the Gentile diet is not, therefore, unclean of itself, or Gentiles would have been unclean by diet.) As to foods, what goes into the belly or not spiritually commends nothing, as you well point out of our Lord's teaching in the Mark verses, though one must do whatever they do in faith. If you're thinking something is a sin in these things, to you it's sin.

Romans 14

22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

I'd hasten to add that not all food is healthy, that I find some unclean foods grotesque and don't eat them for this reason, but neither think twice there's any merit in diet, don't think twice about dietary so-called sin. Grace, of course, is not by any works, only by faith in the work and righteousness of Christ. People who think they're helping the Lord save them by avoiding some food have a very weak or perverted faith. God is not impressed by what we put or don't put at the end of a fork! I'd be more concerned to keep the law of loving God and neighbor, this first and always first.

rstrats
October 13th, 2015, 05:44 AM
6days,
re: "I'm surprised to discover that there are people who use the Bible to say that certain foods, such as pork, are unclean and sinful."

I'm not aware of any scripture that refers to unclean animals as "food".



re: "Various verses seem to clearly indicate we can't defile ourselves by the type of food we eat. Ex...Mark 7:18-19King James Version (KJV)"

The context of Mark 7 has to do with the Pharisees' practice of always washing their hands before eating. The subject is not clean and unclean animals, but unclean hands. The Messiah showed that unclean thoughts are the things that most defile a man, not just unwashed hands. After explaining that inner defilement of the mind is far worse than defilement of the body, the Messiah concluded, 19"For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness blasphemies. 20"These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man."

The Pharisees watched every word and movement that the Messiah made. They falsely accused Him of breaking the Sabbath, and claimed that He blasphemed when He said God was His Father John 5:18. But never did any Jew accuse the Messiah of eating, or advocating the eating of unclean animals.



re: "What say you.... is it a sin to eat oysters, pork, *blood sausage, head cheese etc?

In Isaiah, before the new heavens and new earth are established, God speaks about a rebellious people who walk in a way that is not good, after their own thoughts; a people that provoke Me to anger continually to My face, (65:2,3). One of the reasons these people provoke the Lord is because they eat swine's flesh, and broth of unclean meat is in their pots, (65:4).

Also, God declares that He will consume those people who eat swine's flesh, detestable things, and mice. (Isa.66:17). The context of this prophecy is the end times, right before the new heaven and new earth. This would certainly seem to suggest that the Lord will still expect an obedience to His dietary laws.

And Revelation talks of unclean birds which doesn't make sense if all unclean animals have been made clean.

chrysostom
October 13th, 2015, 05:53 AM
paul said what goes in your mouth can't hurt you
what comes out of it can
pork?
this is just one of the so called laws paul was talking about
the other laws still apply

rstrats
October 13th, 2015, 06:14 AM
chrysostom,
re: "paul said what goes in your mouth can't hurt you what comes out of it can"

Where does Paul say that?

chair
October 13th, 2015, 06:31 AM
It is part of Jewish Law to not eat some types of food. It was not meant for Gentiles. Due to the history of Christianity, and how it grew out of Judaism, you still hear echoes of this.

chrysostom
October 13th, 2015, 10:43 AM
chrysostom,
re: "paul said what goes in your mouth can't hurt you what comes out of it can"

Where does Paul say that?

okay
it was Jesus who said that
what do you expect from a catholic?

patrick jane
October 13th, 2015, 11:41 AM
Colossians 2:16 KJV - Colossians 2:14-23 KJV -



Colossians 2:14-15 KJV and 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

All food is good good good - :TomO:

daqq
October 13th, 2015, 03:42 PM
When was the last time anyone asked the swine if he would like to offer up his flesh for the eater? Or a lamb, or a cow, or a bull, or an ox for that matter? "Thou shalt not murder-kill", (PERIOD).

Isaiah 1:10-15
10. Hear the word of YHWH, you rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the Torah of our Elohim, you people of Gomorrah:
11. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? says YHWH: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats:
12. When you come to appear before Me, who has required this at your hand to tread my courts?
13. Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto Me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
14. Your new moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
15. And when you spread forth your hands, I will hide My eyes from you: yea, when you make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

All because they did not understand the Torah, and that it concerns not the slaying and carving up of literal physical living creatures, or the literal eating of the innocent flesh thereof; and likewise the same genos of religious leaders of the so-called church today have the same errant misconceptions concerning the Torah, and blood on their hands for killing and eating living creatures with souls, every time they raise their hands to pray. Meat is murder. :chuckle:

musterion
October 13th, 2015, 03:56 PM
Legalists gonna legal.

jamie
October 13th, 2015, 04:04 PM
In preaching the kingdom of God Paul said, "the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." (Romans 14:17 NKJV)

daqq
October 13th, 2015, 07:45 PM
Legalists gonna legal.

Have you noted the title of this legalistic thread? It is probably the most often raised legalistic dietary question, (especially if you ever visit Messianic forums). If we are gonna do it then so be it, let's do it. Do you eat steaks, cow-burgers, and-or happy meal cheeseburgers? If so you have innocent blood on your hands for causing the deaths of those living creatures whose flesh you enjoy devouring, (wow, that really sounds heinous now that I actually wrote it and read it back to myself). :crackup:

By the way look what Peter actually says in the Acts 10 passage already referenced:

Acts 10:13-14
13. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; slay, and eat!
14. But Peter said, Not so, Master; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

Do you realize that this is at least seven to ten years after the physical ministry of Messiah? If Messiah "declared all foods clean" in Mark 7:19, (as some claim) then apparently Peter never got the memo! Likewise most of the arguments and statements made by Paul concern broma which is food that has been ordained by God as food to be eaten by man. Anything else simply does not qualify as "food". You can find such broma-foods which qualify as food in the book of Genesis, (chapter one and chapter nine which adds fish that swarm in schools because they are not living souls). :chuckle:

patrick jane
October 13th, 2015, 08:06 PM
Have you noted the title of this legalistic thread? It is probably the most often raised legalistic dietary question, (especially if you ever visit Messianic forums). If we are gonna do it then so be it, let's do it. Do you eat steaks, cow-burgers, and-or happy meal cheeseburgers? If so you have innocent blood on your hands for causing the deaths of those living creatures whose flesh you enjoy devouring, (wow, that really sounds heinous now that I actually wrote it and read it back to myself). :crackup:

By the way look what Peter actually says in the Acts 10 passage already referenced:

Acts 10:13-14
13. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; slay, and eat!
14. But Peter said, Not so, Master; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

Do you realize that this is at least seven to ten years after the physical ministry of Messiah? If Messiah "declared all foods clean" in Mark 7:19, (as some claim) then apparently Peter never got the memo! Likewise most of the arguments and statements made by Paul concern broma which is food that has been ordained by God as food to be eaten by man. Anything else simply does not qualify as "food". You can find such broma-foods which qualify as food in the book of Genesis, (chapter one and chapter nine which adds fish that swarm in schools because they are not living souls). :chuckle:

So, why don't you run around worrying about what you eat according to OT law and keep it to yourself. You won't save anybody while complaining about a ham sandwich.

Romans 14:6 KJV - Romans 14:7-9 KJV -


Romans 14:10 KJV Romans 14:12-13 KJV - Romans 14:14 KJV


Romans 14:15-17 KJV -

Eat up Zackree !!!

daqq
October 13th, 2015, 09:17 PM
So, why don't you run around worrying about what you eat according to OT law and keep it to yourself. You won't save anybody while complaining about a ham sandwich.

Romans 14:6 KJV - Romans 14:7-9 KJV -


Romans 14:10 KJV Romans 14:12-13 KJV - Romans 14:14 KJV


Romans 14:15-17 KJV -

Eat up Zackree !!!

I see, so ya'all simply start legalistic threads so that anyone who responds in a way with which you disagree can be labeled a legalist? Sounds like nothing more than bait and switch tactics people such as yourselves use to corner others they do not agree with and stick a label on their foreheads. How about this: if you want nothing to do with this topic or have nothing to add to such a conversation then why do you not simply go find another thread more suited to your kosher ham sandwhich taste buds? (no, there really is no such thing as a kosher ham sandwich, lol). And who says it is my job to "save" anyone? Do you think that is what you are commissioned to do in your life? You reveal your messiah complex all too flippantly. I do not run around worrying about what others eat but I did respond to a thread about the topic which was started by someone else. Did I start this thread? Are you that blind? Why are you suggesting to me that I should be keeping my thoughts on the topic of this thread to myself? Why are you not castigating the one who started this legalistic thread for doing so in the first place? You seem like you really need the true love of Messiah in your life. How are you going to "save" anyone if you have no love? However, I would not advise going around bragging that you have "saved" anyone if I were you, (the real God is a jealous God). :chuckle:

Angel4Truth
October 13th, 2015, 09:17 PM
1 Timothy 4:22 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

daqq
October 13th, 2015, 09:31 PM
1 Timothy 4:22 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

YOU also were created by God were you not? There must be restrictions so what are they? Otherwise you may eat your neighbor according to your apparent understanding of the passage you quoted.

1 Timothy 4:3-4 KJV
3. Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, [GSN#1033 broma] which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Strong's Ref. #1033
Romanized broma
Pronounced bro'-mah
from the base of GSN0977; food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonially) articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law:

As stated on the previous page most of the arguments and statements of Paul on this topic concern BROMA which is foods that are declared by God as food to be eaten by man. BROMA does not mean MEAT as translated by your favorite carnivores. Get someone else besides carnivores to render the Scriptures into English for you, (yes I see that at least your version was not as bad as the KJV). :chuckle:

Angel4Truth
October 13th, 2015, 09:34 PM
YOU also were created by God were you not? There must be restrictions so what are they? Otherwise you may eat your neighbor according to your apparent understanding of the passage you quoted.

1 Timothy 4:3-4 KJV
3. Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, [GSN#1033 broma] which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Strong's Ref. #1033
Romanized broma
Pronounced bro'-mah
from the base of GSN0977; food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonially) articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law:

As stated on the previous page most of the arguments and statements of Paul on this topic concern BROMA which is foods that are declared by God as food to be eaten by man. BROMA does not mean MEAT as translated by your favorite carnivores. Get someone else besides carnivores to render the Scriptures into English for you. :chuckle:

Im not under jewish law.

patrick jane
October 13th, 2015, 09:41 PM
I see, so ya'all simply start legalistic threads so that anyone who responds in a way with which you disagree can be labeled a legalist? Sounds like nothing more than bait and switch tactics people such as yourselves use to corner others they do not agree with and stick a label on their foreheads. How about this: if you want nothing to do with this topic or have nothing to add to such a conversation then why do you not simply go find another thread more suited to your kosher ham sandwhich taste buds? (no, there really is no such thing as a kosher ham sandwich, lol). And who says it is my job to "save" anyone? Do you think that is what you are commissioned to do in your life? You reveal your messiah complex all too flippantly. I do not run around worrying about what others eat but I did respond to a thread about the topic which was started by someone else. Did I start this thread? Are you that blind? Why are you suggesting to me that I should be keeping my thoughts on the topic of this thread to myself? Why are you not castigating the one who started this legalistic thread for doing so in the first place? You seem like you really need the true love of Messiah in your life. How are you going to "save" anyone if you have no love? However, I would not advise going around bragging that you have "saved" anyone if I were you, (the real God is a jealous God). :chuckle:

I thought I was talking to ZacharyB - that's why I ended with: eat up Zackree. So, do you feel that certain foods are unclean and forbidden to eat ?

patrick jane
October 13th, 2015, 09:42 PM
paul said what goes in your mouth can't hurt you
what comes out of it can
pork?
this is just one of the so called laws paul was talking about
the other laws still apply

which others ?

daqq
October 13th, 2015, 09:43 PM
Im not under jewish law.

Neither was I saying that you are but if you want to quote Paul to prove your points then do you not think you should become familiar with the law? Otherwise you are ignoring all of the background and making up your own twenty first century version of what Paul is saying.

Angel4Truth
October 13th, 2015, 09:54 PM
Neither was I saying that you are but if you want to quote Paul to prove your points then do you not think you should become familiar with the law? Otherwise you are ignoring all of the background and making up your own twenty first century version of what Paul is saying.

Do you believe Paul is wrong here?

1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.

daqq
October 13th, 2015, 10:34 PM
Do you believe Paul is wrong here?

1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.

Of course not, but I also do not believe it says whatever it is you must think it says. Is taking innocent blood ever lawful? What do you suppose Paul means in the following passage?

Romans 8:19-23 KJV
19. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21. Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Why does he say the whole creation groans and travails in pain awaiting the manifestation of the sons of God? Could it be that the creatures know that the true sons of God will not hunt them down, fatten them up, slay them, and eat their flesh? I think so! :chuckle:

You have never heard of this covenant with the beasts of the field?

Hosea 2:16-23 KJV
18. And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely.
19. And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies.
20. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the Lord.
21. And it shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith the Lord, I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth;
22. And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel.
23. And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.

Seems I remember Paul quoting from this passage . . .
Oh yea, next chapter from the Romans passage above:

Romans 9:24-26 KJV
24. Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25. As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Ah, yes, I indeed have a covenant which the Father has made between myself and the beasts of the field: they provide me with milk, and cheese, and wool, and whatsoever is lawful, and in return I do not EAT THEM. :crackup:

patrick jane
October 13th, 2015, 10:53 PM
i had 2 ham & cheese samiches for supper

RBBI
October 13th, 2015, 11:54 PM
I didn't always eat Kosher, but I do now and I do so because I know for a fact that's what He wants of me. Peter's vision had nothing to do with food, it was about the gentiles. I don't condemn anyone about it; everyone has to walk in the light that they have in their own season. Peace

patrick jane
October 14th, 2015, 12:13 AM
I didn't always eat Kosher, but I do now and I do so because I know for a fact that's what He wants of me. Peter's vision had nothing to do with food, it was about the gentiles. I don't condemn anyone about it; everyone has to walk in the light that they have in their own season. Peace

That's kosher dude !!

20510

daqq
October 14th, 2015, 01:18 AM
I didn't always eat Kosher, but I do now and I do so because I know for a fact that's what He wants of me. Peter's vision had nothing to do with food, it was about the gentiles. I don't condemn anyone about it; everyone has to walk in the light that they have in their own season. Peace

Can a kosher butcher truly drain all blood from an animal? Not possible, and that is why the meat is salted, (to help disperse the remnant blood which still ends up being eaten). I also used to eat meat of land animals until I began to realize that they too are called living souls, and that the soul resides in the blood, and what had happened in the beginning: all creation was perverted from its way, including the animals. How do you suppose Noah new the difference between the clean and unclean animals? The unclean are the birds and beasts of prey which kill and eat other living souls for food. Elohim did not make His creation this way in the beginning. Likewise the fish is a simple common sense understanding: ask yourself if your Elohim would make one living soul just so as to become food for another more powerful living soul? Would your Elohim make one living soul just to be eaten by another more powerful than itself? All of the great sea creatures such as whales, sharks, dolphins, porpoises, all which have skins rather than scales, those are clearly living souls according to the scripture. And what do they eat? They eat the lesser sea creatures such as fish that swarm in schools. The great sea creatures cannot come up onto land and harvest wheat or make bread so they have no choice but to eat what Elohim has made for them to eat in the waters. Thus the lesser sea creatures, such as fish with scales that swarm in schools, are NOT living souls, (and therefore added to the diet of Noah and his sons). However land animals and beasts of the field were not predatory before the fall, and were instead perverted, and thus the predators are those which became unclean such as any of the cat family with paws, claws, such as lions, tigers, leopards, etc., etc. The same is true concerning the unclean fowls of the heavens which are for the most part all of the predatory birds, (and their symbolism in the Parable of the Sower is the Wicked one, the Devil, and the Satan, in the three respective Gospel accounts where that parable is found). What shall I say then? Killing and eating another living soul is unnatural in the original perfect order of the perfect Creator. :)


So, do you feel that certain foods are unclean and forbidden to eat ?

Just eat only the meats that you read of Yeshua eating in the Gospel accounts and how can you go wrong? You desire to be like him correct? As I remember correctly he only ate a piece of broiled fish and that was only after the resurrection. However he also multiplied the bread and the several little fishes when he fed the four thousand and the five thousand, (because fish that swarm in schools are not living souls). And remember that killing and eating another living soul is a typical remnant predatory Nephilim trait. :chuckle:

musterion
October 14th, 2015, 02:27 AM
I didn't always eat Kosher, but I do now and I do so because I know for a fact that's what He wants of me.

You KNOW that's what He wants, or that is what your conscience tells you He wants?


Peter's vision had nothing to do with food, it was about the gentiles.So its now ok for Jews to eat Gentiles. Somebody has been reading Protocols of Zion.

Peter ate with Gentiles until legalists pressured him into not. Paul rebuked him publicly for it. The vision was about food and Gentiles.

patrick jane
October 14th, 2015, 02:35 AM
Can a kosher butcher truly drain all blood from an animal? Not possible, and that is why the meat is salted, (to help disperse the remnant blood which still ends up being eaten). I also used to eat meat of land animals until I began to realize that they too are called living souls, and that the soul resides in the blood, and what had happened in the beginning: all creation was perverted from its way, including the animals.




I bet you're an animal lover and vegetarian. :dog:

MichaelCadry
October 14th, 2015, 02:48 AM
Colossians 2:16 KJV - Colossians 2:14-23 KJV -



Colossians 2:14-15 KJV and 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

All food is good good good - :TomO:


Dear patrickj,

You are hilarious!! This made me laugh hard!!

Michael

rstrats
October 14th, 2015, 05:26 AM
Angel4Truth,
re: "...and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in..."


But as has been touched on, not all animals were created to be used as food.
In Isaiah, before the new heavens and new earth are established in the end times, God speaks about a rebellious people who walk in a way that is not good, after their own thoughts; a people that provoke Him to anger continually to His face, (65:2,3). One of the reasons these people provoke the Lord is because they eat swine's flesh, and have broth of unclean meat in their pots,(65:4). Also, He declares that He will consume those people who eat swine's flesh, detestable things, and mice (66:17).

rstrats
October 14th, 2015, 05:32 AM
patrick jane,
re: "i had 2 ham & cheese samiches for supper"

Are you suggesting that your eating of an unclean animal somehow makes it ok?

Stripe
October 14th, 2015, 07:58 AM
I can never truly assert that I am right and others are wrong.

We already knew that, which is why we ignore you when you declare yourself righteous over those who uphold the Bible's words.

jamie
October 14th, 2015, 08:10 AM
Just eat only the meats that you read of Yeshua eating in the Gospel accounts and how can you go wrong?


Are you saying Jesus didn't observe Passover prior to his sacrifice?

Did Jesus teach his disciples to not eat meat?


Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the Passover lamb, His disciples said to Him, Where do You want us to go and prepare, that You may eat the Passover? (Mark 14:12 NKJV)

daqq
October 14th, 2015, 08:22 AM
Are you saying Jesus didn't observe Passover prior to his sacrifice?

Did Jesus teach his disciples to not eat meat?

Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the Passover lamb, His disciples said to Him, Where do You want us to go and prepare, that You may eat the Passover? (Mark 14:12 NKJV)

He obviously observed the Passover but apparently not in the way most carnivores like to understand it. Torah is Spirit, you believe Paul don't you? The Law is spiritual, (supernal). Can you show me in what is written where Yeshua ate slaughtered lamb?

patrick jane
October 14th, 2015, 10:51 AM
Are you saying Jesus didn't observe Passover prior to his sacrifice?

Did Jesus teach his disciples to not eat meat?


Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the Passover lamb, His disciples said to Him, Where do You want us to go and prepare, that You may eat the Passover? (Mark 14:12 NKJV)

yep, that confirms it to me. Jesus was not a vegetarian !

patrick jane
October 14th, 2015, 10:54 AM
Daqq don't dig on SWINE ! Or any other edible land creatures it seems.



20517

RBBI
October 14th, 2015, 10:55 AM
You KNOW that's what He wants, or that is what your conscience tells you He wants?

So its now ok for Jews to eat Gentiles. Somebody has been reading Protocols of Zion.

Peter ate with Gentiles until legalists pressured him into not. Paul rebuked him publicly for it. The vision was about food and Gentiles.

I KNOW that's what He wants, or I wouldn't have done a 180.


Act 10:17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,

Act 10:18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.

Act 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Note that the scriptures tell you plainly a few verses later, the meaning of the vision. Peace

patrick jane
October 14th, 2015, 10:57 AM
Today, 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrick jane View Post
Colossians 2:16 KJV - Colossians 2:14-23 KJV -



Colossians 2:14-15 KJV and 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

All food is good good good -


Dear patrickj,

You are hilarious!! This made me laugh hard!!

Michael




It's scripture Michael, not a joke !

jamie
October 14th, 2015, 11:00 AM
Can you show me in what is written where Yeshua ate slaughtered lamb?


The Torah required lamb or goat to be killed and eaten by men as the Passover.

To not do so if able was sin.


But the man who is clean and is not on a journey, and ceases to keep the Passover, that same person shall be cut off from among his people, because he did not bring the offering of the LORD at its appointed time; that man shall bear his sin.
(Numbers 9:13 NKJV)

Jesus is the Lamb of God symbolizing Passover for the firstborn. Jesus observed God's feasts.

RBBI
October 14th, 2015, 11:01 AM
Can a kosher butcher truly drain all blood from an animal? Not possible, and that is why the meat is salted, (to help disperse the remnant blood which still ends up being eaten). I also used to eat meat of land animals until I began to realize that they too are called living souls, and that the soul resides in the blood, and what had happened in the beginning: all creation was perverted from its way, including the animals. How do you suppose Noah new the difference between the clean and unclean animals? The unclean are the birds and beasts of prey which kill and eat other living souls for food. Elohim did not make His creation this way in the beginning. Likewise the fish is a simple common sense understanding: ask yourself if your Elohim would make one living soul just so as to become food for another more powerful living soul? Would your Elohim make one living soul just to be eaten by another more powerful than itself? All of the great sea creatures such as whales, sharks, dolphins, porpoises, all which have skins rather than scales, those are clearly living souls according to the scripture. And what do they eat? They eat the lesser sea creatures such as fish that swarm in schools. The great sea creatures cannot come up onto land and harvest wheat or make bread so they have no choice but to eat what Elohim has made for them to eat in the waters. Thus the lesser sea creatures, such as fish with scales that swarm in schools, are NOT living souls, (and therefore added to the diet of Noah and his sons). However land animals and beasts of the field were not predatory before the fall, and were instead perverted, and thus the predators are those which became unclean such as any of the cat family with paws, claws, such as lions, tigers, leopards, etc., etc. The same is true concerning the unclean fowls of the heavens which are for the most part all of the predatory birds, (and their symbolism in the Parable of the Sower is the Wicked one, the Devil, and the Satan, in the three respective Gospel accounts where that parable is found). What shall I say then? Killing and eating another living soul is unnatural in the original perfect order of the perfect Creator. :)



Just eat only the meats that you read of Yeshua eating in the Gospel accounts and how can you go wrong? You desire to be like him correct? As I remember correctly he only ate a piece of broiled fish and that was only after the resurrection. However he also multiplied the bread and the several little fishes when he fed the four thousand and the five thousand, (because fish that swarm in schools are not living souls). And remember that killing and eating another living soul is a typical remnant predatory Nephilim trait. :chuckle:

That's very interesting daqq, and I'd like to hear more on the last sentence, in particular. The living souls point is interesting to me, too. I started boiling all meats in salt water 30 years ago after coming to the Lord. I had a profound spiritual experience for about 10 days which I won't go into on here. But one of the "odd" things was that I could not stand the smell of any meat cooking. I kept checking to see if it was spoiled. It was not spoiled but I couldn't eat it. Granted He had me fasting those 10 days, but I couldn't stand the smell of meat, which I thought was weird considering what a big meat eater I was. Peace

jamie
October 14th, 2015, 11:40 AM
The living souls point is interesting to me, too.


Here is what the Torah says about living souls.


You shall therefore distinguish between clean animals and unclean, between unclean birds and clean, and you shall not make yourselves abominable by beast or by bird, or by any kind of living thing that creeps on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. (Leviticus 20:25 NKJV)

Why the instruction to distinguish between clean and unclean creatures? So that the people would not make themselves abominable by eating unclean creatures.

Could the people of Israel eat meat?


And you may eat every animal with cloven hooves, having the hoof split into two parts and that chews the cud, among the animals. (Deuteronomy 14:6 NKJV)

And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household. (Deuteronomy 14:26 NKJV)

genuineoriginal
October 14th, 2015, 12:36 PM
Im not under jewish law.

Neither was Noah when he was told to take seven pairs of clean animals and two pairs of all the rest.

Since Noah was not under Jewish law, how did he know which animals were clean animals?

genuineoriginal
October 14th, 2015, 12:42 PM
All food is good good good - :TomO:

So, why don't you run around worrying about what you eat according to OT law and keep it to yourself. You won't save anybody while complaining about a ham sandwich.
Paul said that the believers that think they are free to eat anything are the ones that should say nothing about their freedom to eat.

Romans 14:22
22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

Paul never said the believers that think they should not eat unclean meats were the ones that should keep quiet about it.

daqq
October 14th, 2015, 04:21 PM
That's very interesting daqq, and I'd like to hear more on the last sentence, in particular.

Genesis 6:1-4
1. And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them:
2. That bney ha-Elohim saw the daughters of men, that they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3. And YHWH said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for he also is flesh: yet shall his days be an hundred and twenty years.
4. Ha-Nphilim were in the land in those days, and also after that, when bney ha-Elohim came in unto the daughters of men; and they bare offspring to them, the same were haGibborim of `olam, the men named.

Enoch 7:1 It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful.
Enoch 7:2 And when the Watchers, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamored of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget offspring.
Enoch 7:3 Then their leader Shemyaza said to them, I fear that you may perhaps be indisposed to the performance of this enterprise:
Enoch 7:4 And that I alone shall suffer for so grievous a crime.
Enoch 7:5 But they answered him, and said, We all swear:
Enoch 7:6 And bind ourselves by mutual execrations, that we will not change our intention, but execute our projected undertaking.
Enoch 7:7 Then they swore all together, and all bound themselves by mutual execrations. Their whole number was two hundred, who descended upon Ardis, which is the top of mount Armon.
Enoch 7:8 That mountain was therefore called Hermon, because they had sworn upon it, and bound themselves by mutual execrations.
Enoch 7:9 And these are the names of their leaders: Smazz, their leader, Arkba, Rml, Kkabl, Tml, Rml, Dnl, zql, Barqjl, Asl, Armrs, Batrl, Annl, Zaql, Samspl, Satarl, Trl, Jmjl, Saril. These are the chiefs of tens over the two hundred angels, and the remainder were all with them.
Enoch 7:10 Then they took wives, each choosing for himself; whom they began to approach, and with whom they cohabited; teaching them sorcery, incantations, and the dividing of roots and trees.
Enoch 7:11 And the women conceiving brought forth giants, (three races including Nphilim).
Enoch 7:12 Whose stature was each three hundred cubits. These devoured all which the labor of men produced; until it became impossible to feed them:
Enoch 7:13 When they turned themselves against men, in order to devour them:
Enoch 7:14 And began to injure birds, beasts, reptiles, and fishes, and to devour the flesh of one another, and to drink their blood.
Enoch 7:15 Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.

RBBI
October 14th, 2015, 04:43 PM
Thanks. I know about the Nephalim but I had not read Enoch. Do we have substantial proof that THIS Enoch is the original mentioned in the NT? Three hundred cubits??? A cubit is 17 inches! Peace

daqq
October 14th, 2015, 05:15 PM
Thanks. I know about the Nephalim but I had not read Enoch. Do we have substantial proof that THIS Enoch is the original mentioned in the NT? Three hundred cubits??? A cubit is 17 inches! Peace

Fragments from every section of 1Enoch, (except the section called "Parables") have been recovered at Damasek-Damascus Qumran which makes the 1Enoch text older than any Apostolic writing, (in some cases about two hundred years older). As for the common cubit it is indeed probably equivalent to about 17.1717", however, the passage says "stature" which is not the same as height. A man is the stature of what he thinks of himself in his vain imagination; and from old this usually correlates the greatest accomplishment or building one has made in his life, such as Nimrod and the tower at Babel, (for instance the Great Pyramid at Giza is about three hundred cubits in height, and thus the stature of the builder, but not necessarily in literal terms of the height of a man). The point of the post however was that indeed this record states that the fallen ones corrupted the animals, (probably making predatory species out of some otherwise docile creatures, as previously touched on herein, how the perfect creation was distorted in the beginning). The newly altered predatory animals therefore became "unclean" and this is what I meant by how Noach would have known which species were considered unclean without needing to be told. They were altered from their original creation by the fallen ones and turned into predators, (and likely used for weapons of warfare and hunting). In addition 1Enoch clearly takes a position against the eating of any flesh or blood of animals whatsoever. :)

RBBI
October 14th, 2015, 05:30 PM
Thanks for the info about Enoch. I can believe that about the animals nature changing if for no other reason, I've seen what the love of HaShem poured out on them can do to reverse it. We had a full size collie, a black cat, and a black duck, that all took naps cuddled up to one another in the front yard every day. Love wins. :chuckle:

daqq
October 14th, 2015, 06:50 PM
The Torah required lamb or goat to be killed and eaten by men as the Passover.

To not do so if able was sin.

But the man who is clean and is not on a journey, and ceases to keep the Passover, that same person shall be cut off from among his people, because he did not bring the offering of the LORD at its appointed time; that man shall bear his sin.
(Numbers 9:13 NKJV)Jesus is the Lamb of God symbolizing Passover for the firstborn. Jesus observed God's feasts.

That is YOUR version of the Feasts. For the same reason I highlighted in blue what the father says in Isaiah about THEIR feasts which He could not stand any more, (He clearly says in Leviticus 23:2 the those therein are HIS Feasts). So it is not that Yeshua would be breaking Torah but rather not in agreement with YOUR interpretation of Torah. You know the drill right? The words of Yeshua, and the Prophets, and the Psalms, do not agree with you:

John 2:13-16
13. And the Passover of the Yhudim was at hand; and Yeshua went up to Yerushalaim:
14. And found in the temple those that sold oxen, and sheep, and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15. And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the money of the changers, and overthrew the tables:
16. And said to them that sold doves, Take these things from here: make not the house of my Father a house of merchandise!

Matthew 21:12-13
12. And Yeshua went into the temple of Elohim, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves:
13. And said to them, IT IS WRITTEN, "MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED THE HOUSE OF PRAYER", but you have made it a den of thieves!

It is the House of Prayer and not a house of literal blood sacrifices of slaughtered living creatures: therefore offer up the calves or bullocks of your lips, (Hosea 14:2). Take WORDS with you to the altar of Elohim and offer up the sweet smelling savor of a broken and contrite heart:

Hosea 14:1-2
1. O Yisrael, return to YHWH your Elohim; for you have fallen by your own iniquity.
2. Take WORDS with you, and turn to YHWH: say unto Him, "Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously," so shall we render the bullocks of our lips.

Psalm 50:9-15
9. I will take no bullock out of your house nor he-goats from your folds:
10. For every beast of the forest is Mine and the cattle upon a thousand hills.
11. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are Mine.
12. If I were hungry, I would not tell you: for the world is Mine, and the fullness thereof.
13. Will I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats?
14. Offer unto Elohim thanksgiving and pay your vows unto the Most High:
15. And call upon Me in the day of trouble: I will deliver you, and you shall glorify Me.

Psalm 51:14-19
14. Deliver me from blood guiltiness, O Elohim, thou Elohim of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.
15. O YHWH, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall show forth thy praise.
16. For you desire not sacrifice; or else would I give it: You delight not in burnt offering.
17. The sacrifices of Elohim are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O Elohim, you will not despise.
18. Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build the walls of Yerushalaim.
19. Then shall you be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with ascending offering, and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks [of their lips] upon your altar.

It never was about slaying innocent creatures and presenting their blood to appease an angry God. Even from the times of the prophets, such as Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others, and well before the advent of Messiah, it was already very clear and remains very clear that the Torah was and is being hijacked by carnivores who walk according to the eyes, mind, and belly of the flesh.

jamie
October 14th, 2015, 06:57 PM
That is YOUR version of the Feasts. For the same reason I highlighted in blue what the father says in Isaiah about THEIR feasts which He could not stand any more, (He clearly says in Leviticus 23:2 the those therein are HIS Feasts).


Are you claiming Jesus did not observe God's feasts? Surely the Jews would have mentioned it.

1Mind1Spirit
October 14th, 2015, 07:13 PM
Here is what the Torah says about living souls.


You shall therefore distinguish between clean animals and unclean, between unclean birds and clean, and you shall not make yourselves abominable by beast or by bird, or by any kind of living thing that creeps on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. (Leviticus 20:25 NKJV)

Why the instruction to distinguish between clean and unclean creatures? So that the people would not make themselves abominable by eating unclean creatures.

Could the people of Israel eat meat?


And you may eat every animal with cloven hooves, having the hoof split into two parts and that chews the cud, among the animals. (Deuteronomy 14:6 NKJV)

And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household. (Deuteronomy 14:26 NKJV)

Not spiritually, though you have and will.




Barnabas 10:1
But forasmuch as Moses said; Ye shall not eat seine nor eagle nor
falcon nor crow nor any fish which hath no scale upon it, he
received in his understanding three ordinances.

Barnabas 10:2
Yea and further He saith unto them in Deuteronomy; And I will lay
as a covenant upon this people My ordinances. So then it is not a
commandment of God that they should not bite with their teeth, but
Moses spake it in spirit.

Barnabas 10:3
Accordingly he mentioned the swine with this intent. Thou shalt not
cleave, saith he, to such men who are like unto swine; that is, when
they are in luxury they forget the Lord, but when they are in want
they recognize the Lord, just as the swine when it eateth knoweth not
his lord, but when it is hungry it crieth out, and when it has
received food again it is silent.

Barnabas 10:4
Neither shalt thou eat eagle nor falcon nor kite nor crow. Thou
shalt not, He saith, cleave unto, or be likened to, such men who now
not how to provide food for themselves by toil and sweat, but in
their lawlessness seize what belongeth to others, and as if they were
walking in guilelessness watch and search about for some one to rob
in their rapacity, just as these birds alone do not provide food for
themselves, but sit idle and seek how they may eat the meat that
belongeth to others, being pestilent in their evil-doings.

Barnabas 10:5
And thou shalt not eat, saith He, lamprey nor polypus nor cuttle
fish . Thou shalt not, He meaneth, become like unto such men, who
are desperately wicked, and are already condemned to death, just as
these fishes alone are accursed and swim in the depths, not swimming
on the surface like the rest, but dwell on the ground beneath the
deep sea.

Barnabas 10:6
Moreover thou shalt not eat the hare. Why so? Thou shalt not be
found a corrupter of boys, nor shalt thou become like such persons;
for the hare gaineth one passage in the body every year; for
according to the number of years it lives it has just so many
orifices.

Barnabas 10:7
Again, neither shalt thou eat the hyena; thou shalt not, saith He,
become an adulterer or a fornicator, neither shalt thou resemble such
persons. Why so? Because this animal changeth its nature year by
year, and becometh at one time male and at another female.

Barnabas 10:8
Moreover He hath hated the weasel also and with good reason. Thou
shalt not, saith He, become such as those men of whom we hear as
working iniquity with their mouth for uncleanness, neither shalt thou
cleave unto impure women who work iniquity with their mouth. For
this animal conceiveth with its mouth.

patrick jane
October 14th, 2015, 07:35 PM
Barnabas 10:8
Moreover He hath hated the weasel also and with good reason. Thou
shalt not, saith He, become such as those men of whom we hear as
working iniquity with their mouth for uncleanness, neither shalt thou
cleave unto impure women who work iniquity with their mouth. For
this animal conceiveth with its mouth.


what the .... is Barnabas ?

achduke
October 14th, 2015, 07:38 PM
I'm surprised to discover that there are people who use the Bible to say that certain foods, such as pork, are unclean and sinful. Various verses seem to clearly indicate we can't defile ourselves by the type of food we eat.

Ex...Mark 7:18-19King James Version (KJV)
18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

I was using Acts 10, Peters vision, to show that there is no unclean foods. The counter argument is that the food in Acts 10 in only to be taken metaphorically.

What say you.... is it a sin to eat oysters, pork, *blood sausage, head cheese etc?

I guess maybe God changed his mind about swine? Isaiah 66 talks about God's end time judgement.

Forgoing swine does not save you but eating swine does not save you either. God forbid it so I choose to not eat it. To each their own and God will be their judge. I do not see what it hurts by not eating swine.

Isaiah 66:16 For by fire and by His sword the LORD will judge all flesh; and the slain of the LORD shall be many.

Isaiah 66:17 "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.

daqq
October 14th, 2015, 07:56 PM
Barnabas 10:1
But forasmuch as Moses said; Ye shall not eat seine nor eagle nor
falcon nor crow nor any fish which hath no scale upon it, he
received in his understanding three ordinances.

Barnabas 10:2
Yea and further He saith unto them in Deuteronomy; And I will lay
as a covenant upon this people My ordinances. So then it is not a
commandment of God that they should not bite with their teeth, but
Moses spake it in spirit.

Barnabas 10:3
Accordingly he mentioned the swine with this intent. Thou shalt not
cleave, saith he, to such men who are like unto swine; that is, when
they are in luxury they forget the Lord, but when they are in want
they recognize the Lord, just as the swine when it eateth knoweth not
his lord, but when it is hungry it crieth out, and when it has
received food again it is silent.

Barnabas 10:4
Neither shalt thou eat eagle nor falcon nor kite nor crow. Thou
shalt not, He saith, cleave unto, or be likened to, such men who now
not how to provide food for themselves by toil and sweat, but in
their lawlessness seize what belongeth to others, and as if they were
walking in guilelessness watch and search about for some one to rob
in their rapacity, just as these birds alone do not provide food for
themselves, but sit idle and seek how they may eat the meat that
belongeth to others, being pestilent in their evil-doings.

:thumb: Spot on, my friend.
And people should realize that Barnabas is a FIRST CENTURY manuscript. :)


Are you claiming Jesus did not observe God's feasts? Surely the Jews would have mentioned it.

The "inner city" Jews and the desert community Essenes vehemently disagreed in doctrine and the Damasek-Qumran community were also Zadokite brethren of the inner city Tzaddukim chief priests, (with whom they vehemently disagreed). We may not have heard very loudly of such a dispute because the apostles were neither P'rushim nor Tzaddukim nor Scribes and what you have before you in the writings was written by the apostles. In addition I already said clearly that Yeshua obviously observed the Passover of YHWH but not the way in which you seem to expect him to have observed it. It is you who already tried to force your doctrine into the scripture when you quoted Mark 14:12 and implied that Yeshua and his talmidim must have eaten lamb at the Seder.


Are you saying Jesus didn't observe Passover prior to his sacrifice?

Did Jesus teach his disciples to not eat meat?

Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the Passover lamb, His disciples said to Him, Where do You want us to go and prepare, that You may eat the Passover? (Mark 14:12 NKJV)

The scripture clearly refutes you in this also because then you went on to say that Yeshua is "the Lamb of God symbolizing Passover for the firstborn", (which post I quoted previously above) when the truth of the matter is right there in the same passage for all to see. There is no lamb at the Seder and Yeshua himself breaks BREAD and tells his disciples that the BREAD is his body:

Mark 14:22
22. And as they did eat, Yeshua took BREAD, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, TAKE, EAT: THIS IS MY BODY.

WHERE IS THE LAMB IF THIS IS THE SEDER? :chuckle:

patrick jane
October 14th, 2015, 08:40 PM
:thumb: Spot on, my friend.
And people should realize that Barnabas is a FIRST CENTURY manuscript. :)


Barny ain't in my Bible so I don't care what he wrote. Rules and regulations. Besides, things changed when Jesus Christ came, in case you hadn't heard - :Plain:

patrick jane
October 14th, 2015, 08:43 PM
I guess maybe God changed his mind about swine? Isaiah 66 talks about God's end time judgement.

Forgoing swine does not save you but eating swine does not save you either. God forbid it so I choose to not eat it. To each their own and God will be their judge. I do not see what it hurts by not eating swine.

Isaiah 66:16 For by fire and by His sword the LORD will judge all flesh; and the slain of the LORD shall be many.

Isaiah 66:17 "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.

it doesn't hurt to eat it either. Why else did God make hogs ?

RBBI
October 14th, 2015, 08:50 PM
it doesn't hurt to eat it either. Why else did God make hogs ?

To cast demons into? :chuckle:

Nick M
October 14th, 2015, 08:51 PM
I'm surprised to discover that there are people who use the Bible to say that certain foods, such as pork, are unclean and sinful. Various verses seem to clearly indicate we can't defile ourselves by the type of food we eat.



Israel was to be set apart from the world. There is nothing for the Body with that law.

Nick M
October 14th, 2015, 08:53 PM
It is part of Jewish Law to not eat some types of food. It was not meant for Gentiles. Due to the history of Christianity, and how it grew out of Judaism, you still hear echoes of this.

Rep +1

jamie
October 14th, 2015, 08:56 PM
The scripture clearly refutes you in this also because then you went on to say that Yeshua is "the Lamb of God symbolizing Passover for the firstborn", (which post I quoted previously above) when the truth of the matter is right there in the same passage for all to see. There is no lamb at the Seder and Yeshua himself breaks BREAD and tells his disciples that the BREAD is his body:

Mark 14:22
22. And as they did eat, Yeshua took BREAD, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, TAKE, EAT: THIS IS MY BODY.

WHERE IS THE LAMB IF THIS IS THE SEDER? :chuckle:



Jesus died on the afternoon that the Passover animals were killed and then eaten that night.

We know that the law was changed because of the change in priesthood. Jesus has been appointed High Priest after the order of Melchizedek not Aaron.

As High Priest Jesus instituted new Passover symbols for the NT.

Jesus became the Lamb of God for the firstborn.

1Mind1Spirit
October 14th, 2015, 09:05 PM
what the .... is Barnabas ?

I first ran across the epistles of Barnabas in an old book titled the forgotten books of the bible.

Back before computer days.

The Catholic councils are not the final authority on what constitutes Gods word.

daqq
October 14th, 2015, 09:14 PM
Barny ain't in my Bible so I don't care what he wrote. Rules and regulations. Besides, things changed when Jesus Christ came, in case you hadn't heard - :Plain:

Yep, things changed alright: no more winking at your carnal lust for the flesh of slain beasts because Yeshua changed all that by his Testimony and proved that the carnal minded doctrines of the Pharisees, Sadduks, and Scribes were erroneous, (and especially concerning slain beasts, sacrifices, and the eating of meats). Even Paul tells you that the winking at your ignorance is over, (Acts 17:24-29, 30, 31) and likewise the Acts council and letter which he accepted, adhered to, and delivered to the congregations which he visited, also clearly warns you not to eat blood, (Acts 15:20, 29). And as already stated previously there is no way to actually drain all of the blood out of a cow, a goat, a lamb, or your apparent favorite, the hog. When you eat their flesh you not only eat the flesh of what was once a living soul but you partake of their soul because the soul resides in the blood; and you surely do eat some of their blood in the meat you consume. Oink, oink, :crackup:

daqq
October 14th, 2015, 09:37 PM
Jesus died on the afternoon that the Passover animals were killed and then eaten that night.

Now you have opened up the proverbial can of worms, (the never-ending debate over what day this actually is). Your statement is not even in agreement with the passage you quoted from Mark. Here it is in full:

Mark 14:12-22 KJV
12. And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?
13. And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him.
14. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?
15. And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us.
16. And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
17. And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.
18. And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.
19. And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I?
20. And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.
21. The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.
22. And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

According to this rendering, (which may or may not be correct) it is the first day of Unleavened Bread and yet further that day, when EVENING comes, then Yeshua sits down with the twelve for the Seder, (and again there is no mention of lamb but only the bread and wine of Melki-Tzedek). :chuckle:

1Mind1Spirit
October 14th, 2015, 09:42 PM
When you eat their flesh you not only eat the flesh of what was once a living soul but you partake of their soul because the soul resides in the blood; and you surely do eat some of their blood in the meat you consume. Oink, oink, :crackup:

LOL, but not quite.

You cant strangle fish, or veggies.

By this I know yer a teasin' PJ, jesting aint expedient so I'm just speedin' things up a bit.

I got a laugh outta the oink, oink, bit too. :)

daqq
October 15th, 2015, 12:14 AM
LOL, but not quite.

You cant strangle fish, or veggies.

By this I know yer a teasin' PJ, jesting aint expedient so I'm just speedin' things up a bit.

I got a laugh outta the oink, oink, bit too. :)

Barnabas implies nearly the same thing, that is, that we should not partake of the nature of the unclean animals. And that truly is what the teachings are more about because we already have a primary commandment in the Ten Words which commands us "Thou shalt not murder-kill", (PERIOD). The commandment says nothing about only pertaining to killing human beings but rather not to murder-kill, period. There are no stipulations given concerning what can and what cannot be killed so when it comes to the physical it logically includes any living soul. And the primary commandment from the Ten is surely not just "supernal" but includes the physical meaning of murder and killing. But "to eat" in the spiritual world implies consuming testimony and doctrine, (just as the brethren that "consumed" the testimony of Cornelius when Peter brought it back and shared it with all). Perhaps this is why Yeshua likens the fowls of the air, (predatory) to the wicked one, the devil, and the Satan, in the three accounts of the Parable of the Sower? The unclean fowls of the air represent the wicked one, the Devil, and the Satan, because of their natures as Barnabas also says. However, I never said anything about strangling, (it is spiritual-supernal in meaning because literal blood is already covered in the Acts 15 statement, for example the swine which were "choked-strangled" in the sea, and in like manner "Asmodeus the worst of demons" was chased back to Egypt and strangled there by Raphael in the NJB version of the book of Tobit). I did however say that I do not believe fish with scales that swarm in schools are living souls, (and therefore were added to the diet of Noah in Genesis 9:2-3). This is why I already suggested to PJ, since all of this can become so complicated, that he should just eat whatever meats that he reads of Yeshua eating in the Gospel accounts, and how can he go wrong with that? But then as soon as you say something like that everyone starts trying to prove that Yeshua ate the same kinds of living creatures that they themselves like to eat. Ah well, guess I'm just ramblin, twinkle twinkle little star, how I wonder who you are; flashing tip, spotless blade, sparkling in the midday sun, Raiphan, Remphan, Rhompha! :crackup:

http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2012/10/F110612KG03-e1365437185170-635x357.jpg
Shechita (http://www.timesofisrael.com/dutch-govt-planning-decree-to-regulate-ritual-slaughter/)


Acts 7:43 (W/H)
43. καὶ ἀνελάβετε τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ Μολόχ καὶ τὸ ἄστρον τοῦ θεοῦ Ῥομφά, τοὺς τύπους οὓς ἐποιήσατε προσκυνεῖν αὐτοῖς. καὶ μετοικιῶ ὑμᾶς ἐπέκεινα Βαβυλῶνος.
http://biblehub.com/text/acts/7-43.htm

http://www.sheshbazzardaq.com/rhompha-rhomphaia.gif
http://biblehub.com/topical/r/rephan.htm
http://biblehub.com/greek/4501a.htm
http://biblehub.com/greek/4501.htm

achduke
October 15th, 2015, 03:50 AM
it doesn't hurt to eat it either. Why else did God make hogs ?

Why not eat monkeys, moths and spiders? Did God not make these also?

rstrats
October 15th, 2015, 04:18 AM
Question: Why did He make the snake?
Answer: To eat the mouse.

Question: Why did He make the mouse?
Answer: To feed the snake.

TomO
October 15th, 2015, 04:46 AM
Why not eat monkeys, moths and spiders? Did God not make these also?

Indeed :Plain:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fried_spider

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_brains


....aren't moths poisonous or something? :think:

ok doser
October 15th, 2015, 06:04 AM
you gotta eat 'em before they metamorph

http://i.imgur.com/tDYcXcR.jpg

achduke
October 15th, 2015, 08:50 AM
Indeed :Plain:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fried_spider

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_brains


....aren't moths poisonous or something? :think:

Do not pigs carry disease?

RBBI
October 15th, 2015, 09:35 AM
Definitely a lot to think about, daqq.....thanks.....Peace

JonahofAkron
October 15th, 2015, 01:51 PM
I see, so ya'all simply start legalistic threads so that anyone who responds in a way with which you disagree can be labeled a legalist? Sounds like nothing more than bait and switch tactics people such as yourselves use to corner others they do not agree with and stick a label on their foreheads. How about this: if you want nothing to do with this topic or have nothing to add to such a conversation then why do you not simply go find another thread more suited to your kosher ham sandwhich taste buds? (no, there really is no such thing as a kosher ham sandwich, lol). And who says it is my job to "save" anyone? Do you think that is what you are commissioned to do in your life? You reveal your messiah complex all too flippantly. I do not run around worrying about what others eat but I did respond to a thread about the topic which was started by someone else. Did I start this thread? Are you that blind? Why are you suggesting to me that I should be keeping my thoughts on the topic of this thread to myself? Why are you not castigating the one who started this legalistic thread for doing so in the first place? You seem like you really need the true love of Messiah in your life. How are you going to "save" anyone if you have no love? However, I would not advise going around bragging that you have "saved" anyone if I were you, (the real God is a jealous God). :chuckle:
Nicely put.

jamie
October 15th, 2015, 02:23 PM
Now you have opened up the proverbial can of worms, (the never-ending debate over what day this actually is). Your statement is not even in agreement with the passage you quoted from Mark. Here it is in full:


I don't see the disagreement, maybe you can explain.

jamie
October 15th, 2015, 02:27 PM
Do not pigs carry disease?


One person's opinion.


LJrJkFBEt_c

OCTOBER23
October 15th, 2015, 02:48 PM
What say ye... Tis a sin to eat oysters, pork, *blood sausage, head cheese etc?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yay Verily, it is thus my good fellow.

Eateth it and thou shall fail the test and miss the mark.

achduke
October 15th, 2015, 03:09 PM
One person's opinion.


LJrJkFBEt_c

Very interesting. I do not follow him but I am surprised he believes this.

daqq
October 15th, 2015, 03:34 PM
Nicely put.

Hi Jonah, nice to meet you. :)


I don't see the disagreement, maybe you can explain.

Okay, I'll try:

You said "Jesus died on the afternoon that the Passover animals were killed and then eaten that night."


Jesus died on the afternoon that the Passover animals were killed and then eaten that night.

We know that the law was changed because of the change in priesthood. Jesus has been appointed High Priest after the order of Melchizedek not Aaron.

As High Priest Jesus instituted new Passover symbols for the NT.

Jesus became the Lamb of God for the firstborn.

That statement is not true according to the passage from Mark which you quoted from because Mark says that the disciples went to prepare the Passover in the first day of Unleavened Bread "when they killed the Passover". You have said that this is the day in which Yeshua died but that is not the case in Hebrew reckoning, (as far as this account) because the Hebrew day ends at sundown. However the evening is a specific time period which some say even commences as soon as the sun begins its trek downward after midday so evening could mean anytime from midday until sundown. Yet either way we see that when evening had come Yeshua then sits down with the twelve in the Mark passage. This is why I capitalized "evening" in my closing comments of the post below:


Now you have opened up the proverbial can of worms, (the never-ending debate over what day this actually is). Your statement is not even in agreement with the passage you quoted from Mark. Here it is in full:

Mark 14:12-22 KJV
12. And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?
13. And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him.
14. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?
15. And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us.
16. And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
17. And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.
18. And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.
19. And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I?
20. And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.
21. The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.
22. And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

According to this rendering, (which may or may not be correct) it is the first day of Unleavened Bread and yet further that day, when EVENING comes, then Yeshua sits down with the twelve for the Seder, (and again there is no mention of lamb but only the bread and wine of Melki-Tzedek). :chuckle:

Whether evening here represents the next day or not Yeshua was not crucified in the day wherein they killed the Passover, that is, according to this passage, and as I said, which may or may not be correctly rendered. But I suppose this thread is not the place for that particular never-ending debate. :)

jamie
October 15th, 2015, 03:46 PM
You said "Jesus died on the afternoon that the Passover animals were killed and then eaten that night."


Did you know that the seven day Feast of Passover begins with a Sabbath?

achduke
October 15th, 2015, 04:15 PM
Did you know that the seven day Feast of Passover begins with a Sabbath?

Please describe. Do you mean the high Sabbath that starts on Aviv 15th?

jamie
October 15th, 2015, 05:35 PM
Please describe. Do you mean the high Sabbath that starts on Aviv 15th?


Yes. (Leviticus 23:6 NKJV)

The last day of the feast is also a Sabbath. (Leviticus 23:8 NKJV)

daqq
October 15th, 2015, 05:47 PM
Did you know that the seven day Feast of Passover begins with a Sabbath?

Technically the feast of the Passover is one day, the feast of Unleavened Bread is seven days, and the seventh day of Unleavened Bread is also a feast, (Exodus 13:6). However I agree that, yes, when the calendar year was exactly three hundred sixty-four days, (until the pole shift at Golgotha) fourteen Abib was always a Shabbat Gadol because there were exactly fifty-two weeks in a year, and thus, fifty-two Shabbatot in a full year. The year always ended with the final Shabbat and therefore seven Abib was always the first Shabbat of the next year: fourteen Abib was therefore always the second Shabbat of the year, that is, until the new order of creation was accomplished through Messiah at Golgotha. :)

achduke
October 15th, 2015, 05:59 PM
Yes. (Leviticus 23:6 NKJV)

The last day of the feast is also a Sabbath. (Leviticus 23:8 NKJV)

How do believe the first month is found?

Nick M
October 15th, 2015, 06:12 PM
Indeed :Plain:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fried_spider

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_brains


....aren't moths poisonous or something? :think:

Chilled monkey brains and snake surprise for everybody.

Nick M
October 15th, 2015, 06:17 PM
Barny ain't in my Bible so I don't care what he wrote.

No need to concern yourself with things that are written to contradict God's words. Good choice for you. We can look at history, (we have to)but when we know it is wrong, ignore it.

jamie
October 15th, 2015, 06:25 PM
How do believe the first month is found?


The 15th day of the first month is on the full moon after the spring equinox.

jamie
October 15th, 2015, 06:32 PM
Technically the feast of the Passover is one day, the feast of Unleavened Bread is seven days...


What if we go by scripture?


In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall observe the Passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. (Ezekiel 45:21 NKJV)

achduke
October 15th, 2015, 06:38 PM
The 15th day of the first month is on the full moon after the spring equinox.

Yes but does the 1st day have to be after the equinox also?

jamie
October 15th, 2015, 07:14 PM
Yes but does the 1st day have to be after the equinox also?


No, just the full moon has to be after the equinox.

daqq
October 15th, 2015, 07:24 PM
What if we go by scripture?
In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall observe the Passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. (Ezekiel 45:21 NKJV)

I was going by Scripture, that is, Torah, (which Ezekiel is not) but if you want use Ezekiel to challenge Torah then perhaps you should at least check with a rendering done by some who actually walked it and lived it:

Ezekiel 45:21 Septuagint (Brenton English Translation)
21. And in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the feast of the passover; seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread.
http://biblehub.com/sep/ezekiel/45.htm

achduke
October 15th, 2015, 07:37 PM
No, just the full moon has to be after the equinox.

Where do you arrive at that?

jamie
October 15th, 2015, 08:41 PM
I was going by Scripture, that is, Torah, (which Ezekiel is not) but if you want use Ezekiel to challenge Torah then perhaps you should at least check with a rendering done by some who actually walked it and lived it:


Therefore you shall sacrifice the Passover to the LORD your God from the flock and the herd in the place where the LORD chooses to put His name. You shall eat no leavened bread with it, seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it... (Deuteronomy 16:2-3 NKJV)

1Mind1Spirit
October 15th, 2015, 10:15 PM
Barnabas implies nearly the same thing, that is, that we should not partake of the nature of the unclean animals. And that truly is what the teachings are more about because we already have a primary commandment in the Ten Words which commands us "Thou shalt not murder-kill", (PERIOD). The commandment says nothing about only pertaining to killing human beings but rather not to murder-kill, period. There are no stipulations given concerning what can and what cannot be killed so when it comes to the physical it logically includes any living soul. And the primary commandment from the Ten is surely not just "supernal" but includes the physical meaning of murder and killing. But "to eat" in the spiritual world implies consuming testimony and doctrine, (just as the brethren that "consumed" the testimony of Cornelius when Peter brought it back and shared it with all). Perhaps this is why Yeshua likens the fowls of the air, (predatory) to the wicked one, the devil, and the Satan, in the three accounts of the Parable of the Sower? The unclean fowls of the air represent the wicked one, the Devil, and the Satan, because of their natures as Barnabas also says. However, I never said anything about strangling, (it is spiritual-supernal in meaning because literal blood is already covered in the Acts 15 statement, for example the swine which were "choked-strangled" in the sea, and in like manner "Asmodeus the worst of demons" was chased back to Egypt and strangled there by Raphael in the NJB version of the book of Tobit). I did however say that I do not believe fish with scales that swarm in schools are living souls, (and therefore were added to the diet of Noah in Genesis 9:2-3). This is why I already suggested to PJ, since all of this can become so complicated, that he should just eat whatever meats that he reads of Yeshua eating in the Gospel accounts, and how can he go wrong with that? But then as soon as you say something like that everyone starts trying to prove that Yeshua ate the same kinds of living creatures that they themselves like to eat. Ah well, guess I'm just ramblin, twinkle twinkle little star, how I wonder who you are; flashing tip, spotless blade, sparkling in the midday sun, Raiphan, Remphan, Rhompha. :crackup:

Yes it can be complicated.

The life of the body is the blood.

Soul and body are separate things.

A school of fish is made up of individual living souls.

However, together they strive as one spirit and one mind.

But get this, they each open their mouths to feed at different times.

As creatures they are an analogy of the great congregation.

This is why they are considered clean.

Not because they are not living souls.

intojoy
October 15th, 2015, 10:25 PM
The dietary restrictions were not made for health purposes.
If that were true then why would God want the Jews healthy and the church sick?
The purpose of the dietary restrictions were to keep Israel separate from the Gentiles. Even their food couldn't be the same.

patrick jane
October 15th, 2015, 10:58 PM
The dietary restrictions were not made for health purposes.
If that were true then why would God want the Jews healthy and the church sick?
The purpose of the dietary restrictions were to keep Israel separate from the Gentiles. Even their food couldn't be the same.

we should eat only beans and bean derivatives. God gave us beans

1Mind1Spirit
October 15th, 2015, 11:08 PM
we should eat only beans and bean derivatives. God gave us beans

Esau thought they was worth his birthright. :juggle:

patrick jane
October 15th, 2015, 11:11 PM
Esau thought they was worth his birthright. :juggle:

Is that what it was ? a bowl of beans

1Mind1Spirit
October 15th, 2015, 11:15 PM
Is that what it was ? a bowl of beans

If you can believe anything the nowadays bible scholars say.

iouae
October 15th, 2015, 11:49 PM
If Jesus ate pork, some Pharisee would have noticed that and accused Him.
His disciples never ate pork. Notice their revulsion when a net of unclean animals came down and Peter was told to "kill and eat" them in Acts 10:13.

I am more interested in what the Gentile churches like Corinth were told to eat. "Beans" and veggies only? Clean animals and veggies only? Animals sacrificed to idols? Anything their conscience allows?

I lean towards that the Gentile churches were given an Old Testament Lite version of dietary laws, as summarised in Acts 15:20
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

However I do believe they were given 1050 more important NT laws like "let the sun not go down upon your wrath". The Pharisees majored in the minors, but I believe Christians were told to major in the majors, and what they ate was a minor. If they had to cut out pork and eat beef, that was not a biggie either.

daqq
October 16th, 2015, 12:12 AM
Yes it can be complicated.

The life of the body is the blood.

Soul and body are separate things.

A school of fish is made up of individual living souls.

However, together they strive as one spirit and one mind.

But get this, they each open their mouths to feed at different times.

As creatures they are an analogy of the great congregation.

This is why they are considered clean.

Not because they are not living souls.

Already explained why I do not believe fish are living souls, (aside from the fact that even Rashi teaches basically the same concerning the fish blood exemption from the blood prohibition) and my reasoning is because I do not believe the Father created one living soul simply to be devoured by another greater and more powerful living soul. The great sea creatures are certainly called living souls. So by your reasoning Elohim would have made one kind of living soul, (fish, as you say) simply as "food" to be devoured by another more powerful living soul, (taniynim gadolim, as the scripture says in Genesis 1:21). And this theoretical problem gets much worse when you come to realize that taniynim is also used for monsters, dragons, Leviathan, (Psalm 74:13-14) the crocodile-dragon of the rod of Ahron, (Exodus 7:10) the Nile crocodile-dragons of the rods of the sorcerers of Pharaoh, (Exodus 7:12) and is also used in symbolism for Pharaoh himself, (Ezekiel 29:3, Ezekiel 32:2). In addition Leviathan is also called the crooked serpent, (Isaiah 27:1) which means that now you have implied that Elohim made living souls, (fish, symbolizing the great congregation) to be devoured by Nile crocodiles, dragons, and Leviathan the crooked serpent. Thus your analogy of fish symbolizing the great congregation raises a red flag to me, (which is probably a true analogy but think bigger fish, great fish, as in the 153 "great fish" in John 21:11 which, by the way, are not eaten in that passage) because you have now implied that we are created as food to be devoured by dragons, crocodiles, and Leviathan the crooked serpent. Should the typology not conclude the opposite or will you be okay with the outcome of your reasoning if it be true? :chuckle:

PS ~ Also whales, dolphins, porpoises, and some of the greater sea creatures with skins rather than scales actually come up to the surface for air, (breath of life and, thus, living souls) while the lesser fish that swarm in schools do not because they breathe water. The small fish are simply raw life, (HSN#2416 chay).

achduke
October 16th, 2015, 03:31 AM
If Jesus ate pork, some Pharisee would have noticed that and accused Him.
His disciples never ate pork. Notice their revulsion when a net of unclean animals came down and Peter was told to "kill and eat" them in Acts 10:13.

I am more interested in what the Gentile churches like Corinth were told to eat. "Beans" and veggies only? Clean animals and veggies only? Animals sacrificed to idols? Anything their conscience allows?

I lean towards that the Gentile churches were given an Old Testament Lite version of dietary laws, as summarised in Acts 15:20
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

However I do believe they were given 1050 more important NT laws like "let the sun not go down upon your wrath". The Pharisees majored in the minors, but I believe Christians were told to major in the majors, and what they ate was a minor. If they had to cut out pork and eat beef, that was not a biggie either.

The Gentiles were told to first stop doing the most heinous sins that they were committing at that time. These Gentiles were starting to attend synagogue and would hear the rest of the Torah and laws at synagogue.

iouae
October 16th, 2015, 08:19 AM
The Gentiles were told to first stop doing the most heinous sins that they were committing at that time. These Gentiles were starting to attend synagogue and would hear the rest of the Torah and laws at synagogue.

Achduke - I am not sure whether these new Corinthian Christians attended at the synagogue, or in their living rooms churches. If they were uncircumcised, would they have been allowed into synagogue?

But do you, from reading the NT believe they were encouraged to keep all 613 OT commands, many of which applied to the sanctuary? We are not even taught these 613 in any church I know of today. What do you mean by "rest of the Torah and laws"?

achduke
October 16th, 2015, 08:59 AM
Achduke - I am not sure whether these new Corinthian Christians attended at the synagogue, or in their living rooms churches. If they were uncircumcised, would they have been allowed into synagogue?

But do you, from reading the NT believe they were encouraged to keep all 613 OT commands, many of which applied to the sanctuary? We are not even taught these 613 in any church I know of today. What do you mean by "rest of the Torah and laws"?

Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

The Gentiles who are now circumcised in the heart that attended synagogue would have heard the weekly Torah that the Jews would have preached.

Many Hebraic teachers do teach the commandments. Not all of the 613 commandments apply to everyone. Some are for Priests, Others are gender specific. Many of them will not even apply since there is no sacrifices nor a physical temple. Christ gave at least 70 commandments. It any case you cannot completely follow the commandments without the Holy Spirit.

genuineoriginal
October 16th, 2015, 09:54 AM
But do you, from reading the NT believe they were encouraged to keep all 613 OT commands, many of which applied to the sanctuary? We are not even taught these 613 in any church I know of today.
Most denominations do not even teach the 10 commandments.

genuineoriginal
October 16th, 2015, 09:56 AM
Is that what it was ? a bowl of beans

Genesis 25:34
34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.

"Lentils are legumes along with other types of beans (http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=52)"

1Mind1Spirit
October 16th, 2015, 11:25 AM
Already explained why I do not believe fish are living souls, (aside from the fact that even Rashi teaches basically the same concerning the fish blood exemption from the blood prohibition) and my reasoning is because I do not believe the Father created one living soul simply to be devoured by another greater and more powerful living soul. The great sea creatures are certainly called living souls. So by your reasoning Elohim would have made one kind of living soul, (fish, as you say) simply as "food" to be devoured by another more powerful living soul, (taniynim gadolim, as the scripture says in Genesis 1:21). And this theoretical problem gets much worse when you come to realize that taniynim is also used for monsters, dragons, Leviathan, (Psalm 74:13-14) the crocodile-dragon of the rod of Ahron, (Exodus 7:10) the Nile crocodile-dragons of the rods of the sorcerers of Pharaoh, (Exodus 7:12) and is also used in symbolism for Pharaoh himself, (Ezekiel 29:3, Ezekiel 32:2). In addition Leviathan is also called the crooked serpent, (Isaiah 27:1) which means that now you have implied that Elohim made living souls, (fish, symbolizing the great congregation) to be devoured by Nile crocodiles, dragons, and Leviathan the crooked serpent. Thus your analogy of fish symbolizing the great congregation raises a red flag to me, (which is probably a true analogy but think bigger fish, great fish, as in the 153 "great fish" in John 21:11 which, by the way, are not eaten in that passage) because you have now implied that we are created as food to be devoured by dragons, crocodiles, and Leviathan the crooked serpent. Should the typology not conclude the opposite or will you be okay with the outcome of your reasoning if it be true? :chuckle:

PS ~ Also whales, dolphins, porpoises, and some of the greater sea creatures with skins rather than scales actually come up to the surface for air, (breath of life and, thus, living souls) while the lesser fish that swarm in schools do not because they breathe water. The small fish are simply raw life, (HSN#2416 chay).

God's breath is also in the waters.

Romans 8:36 KJV


36 As it is written , For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

False Prophet
October 16th, 2015, 11:35 AM
The ten commandments ended with the new covenant at the cross. X-tian sects that forbid the eating of pork or prophets like Joseph Bates told us we have to keep the Sabbath have departed unto fables.
When you were dead [k]in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Col 2

Ben Masada
October 16th, 2015, 11:39 AM
Parting from the principle that sin is a transgression of the law, to eat anything from the swine is forbidden by a Jewish law. Therefore, only to the Jews it is a sin; a minor sin though but still a sin. (Lev. 11:7,8)

Ben Masada
October 16th, 2015, 11:53 AM
The ten commandments ended with the new covenant at the cross. X-tian sects that forbid the eating of pork or prophets like Joseph Bates told us we have to keep the Sabbath have departed unto fables.
When you were dead [k]in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Col 2

Who has decided that the death of Jesus on the cross meant the cancelation of the Law when he declared loud and clear that he had not come to abolish the Law? (Mat. 5:17-19) BTW, Paul in Ephes. 2:15 says that the Law was abolished all the same. Hence, Jesus had been the end of the Law. (Rom. 10:4) Why would Paul contradict Jesus so openly? Could this be an explanation of 2 John 2:18,19 that the antichrists would come out of the ranks of Christianity itself?

Nick M
October 16th, 2015, 11:56 AM
Most denominations do not even teach the 10 commandments.

It is a schoolmaster that reveals the need for a savior.

patrick jane
October 16th, 2015, 11:59 AM
It is a schoolmaster that reveals the need for a savior.

Galatians 3:24-25 KJV -


1 Corinthians 4:15-16 KJV -

WonderfulLordJesus
October 16th, 2015, 12:15 PM
Not intending to disturb the continuity in such important issues of the day, but something comes to mind.

For any Jew or those of you who haven't gotten to Paul's letters yet, is turkey sausage a sin? You don't have any pork in it, but doesn't it seem that making something to be like the unclean thing, as closely as possible, is quite suspect? For instance, would a statue of Baal, made from modern composite materials, be alright to bow down to? I was also thinking how I've known Adventists that love veggie burgers and could not quite figure out how meat is evil while, at the same time, they wanting to eat something as much like meat as possible.

Also, as to the idea of minor sin, was the partaking of Adam and Eve of the forbidden fruit a minor sin, then? (Seems that little snack had some real impact, moving forward, no?) If minor, how many sausage links are the equivalent of a lie, or an act of theft? Ten, twenty? Is murder a whole ham hock?

Sorry. Maybe I'm always just trying to figure out what people are even talking about around here, in terms of theology.

Ben Masada
October 16th, 2015, 12:25 PM
Not intending to disturb the continuity in such important issues of the day, but something comes to mind.

For any Jew or those of you who haven't gotten to Paul's letters yet, is turkey sausage a sin? You don't have any pork in it, but doesn't it seem that making something to be like the unclean thing, as closely as possible, is quite suspect? For instance, would a statue of Baal, made from modern composite materials, be alright to bow down to? I was also thinking how I've known Adventists that love veggie burgers and could not quite figure out how meat is evil while, at the same time, they wanting to eat something as much like meat as possible.

Also, as to the idea of minor sin, was the partaking of Adam and Eve of the forbidden fruit a minor sin, then? (Seems that little snack had some real impact, moving forward, no?) If minor, how many sausage links are the equivalent of a lie, or an act of theft? Ten, twenty? Is murder a whole ham hock?

Sorry. Maybe I'm always just trying to figure out what people are even talking about around here, in terms of theology.

No, turkey sausage is not unclean in itself. Therefore, not a sin to eat of it.

genuineoriginal
October 16th, 2015, 12:35 PM
The ten commandments ended with the new covenant at the cross.
Do you often teach people to murder, steal, commit adultery, covet, and commit perjury?

genuineoriginal
October 16th, 2015, 12:36 PM
It is a schoolmaster that reveals the need for a savior.

Many people that claim to be Christians have never learned the lessons of the schoolmaster.

daqq
October 16th, 2015, 12:42 PM
Who has decided that the death of Jesus on the cross meant the cancelation of the Law when he declared loud and clear that he had not come to abolish the Law? (Mat. 5:17-19) BTW, Paul in Ephes. 2:15 says that the Law was abolished all the same. Hence, Jesus had been the end of the Law. (Rom. 10:4) Why would Paul contradict Jesus so openly? Could this be an explanation of 2 John 2:18,19 that the antichrists would come out of the ranks of Christianity itself?

You are putting words in the mouth of Paul by twisting the meanings of his words. Ephesians 2:15 speaks of ordinances which kept Gentiles out by a "wall of separation" and the tearing down of that wall in the doctrines of the body-temple of Messiah, (not the abolishing of the whole Law). The reason you do not fully understand this, like most, is because you do not fully understand the concepts concerning the body temple of a man. By the Testimony of Yeshua, the Prophets, and the Torah, every man has an house, (which is no more our own when we come to Messiah) and you now have both inner and outer courts, the most holy, the secondary holy place, and the outer bounds-profane-commons, (the flesh, Romans 7:14-25). As for Romans 10:4 it employs "telos" which means "the point aimed at" and is not the same as eschatos:

Romans 10:4
4. For Messiah is the telos-point aimed at of the law for righteousness to every one that believes.

Your version of telos would corrupt the meanings of other important statements. Luke, being a companion of Paul, employs telos in a similar way in the following statement:

Luke 22:37
37. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, "And he was reckoned among the transgressors", for the things concerning me have an telos-end.

You have apparently bitten into modern Pauline Christian doctrine hook, line, and sinker, (apparently so that you can justify rejecting Paul). The above cannot mean "end" as in "abolished" or "done away with" because Messiah was raised from the dead and lives evermore as Kohen Gadol. Your understanding of the word therefore causes contradictions and is not in agreement with how it is employed by either Yeshua or Paul.

jamie
October 16th, 2015, 12:57 PM
Not intending to disturb the continuity in such important issues of the day, but something comes to mind.

For any Jew or those of you who haven't gotten to Paul's letters yet, is turkey sausage a sin?


There is no sin in eating a ground turkey patty seasoned with sage.

I also sprinkle cayenne on my turkey patties.

iouae
October 16th, 2015, 12:59 PM
Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

The Gentiles who are now circumcised in the heart that attended synagogue would have heard the weekly Torah that the Jews would have preached.

Many Hebraic teachers do teach the commandments. Not all of the 613 commandments apply to everyone. Some are for Priests, Others are gender specific. Many of them will not even apply since there is no sacrifices nor a physical temple. Christ gave at least 70 commandments. It any case you cannot completely follow the commandments without the Holy Spirit.

I will admit to confusion as to which OT commands to keep.
The best way I have resolved this for myself is to keep the ones which Christ definitely kept. I do this because where I feel confused about "the word" (meaning the Bible), I just have to look at "the Word" or Jesus as a living interpretation of that word.

For instance, I don't see Jesus sacrificing any animal, and so I don't.

daqq
October 16th, 2015, 01:09 PM
I will admit to confusion as to which OT commands to keep.
The best way I have resolved this for myself is to keep the ones which Christ definitely kept. I do this because where I feel confused about "the word" (meaning the Bible), I just have to look at "the Word" or Jesus as a living interpretation of that word.

For instance, I don't see Jesus sacrificing any animal, and so I don't.

:thumb:

Ben Masada
October 16th, 2015, 01:16 PM
[quote]You are putting words in the mouth of Paul by twisting the meanings of his words. Ephesians 2:15 speaks of ordinances which kept Gentiles out by a "wall of separation" and the tearing down of that wall in the doctrines of the body-temple of Messiah, (not the abolishing of the whole Law).

Tell me Daqq, is the Decalogue a sum of ten ordinances or not? If that's not enough, let me prove otherwise that Paul meant the Decalogue. Read Rom. 7:1-7. That's an allegory of Paul about the widow who got freedom from the Law with the death of her husband. And Paul mean with that allegory our freedom of the Law with the death of Jesus. If you don't believe, read verse 7 and tell me where is it written "Thou shall not covet" if not in the Decalogue?

WonderfulLordJesus
October 16th, 2015, 01:24 PM
No, turkey sausage is not unclean in itself. Therefore, not a sin to eat of it.

How about dill pickles that aren't kosher? I've always hated to think all Poland is damned.

Almost forgot! Rumor has it that when Christ said the whole law would be fulfilled, He was referring to He fulfilling the whole law, He prophesying what the Lord Jesus, in fact, did. And only He, in the entire history of humanity, fulfilled every jot and tittle of the law, therefore only He able to be the unblemished sacrifice for sin, whose blood can pay for sin and save the sinner. This is what fulfilling the law means in Matthew 5:18, absolutely nothing to do with some reminder you'd better keep the whole law, that is, do the impossible, as only the Lord Jesus did, only He fulfilling the law for all who come broken to the foot of the cross, believing and receiving His righteousness imputed.

Think about it. Wouldn't that be silly, to push the law to lost sinners, none of whom have or could possibly keep the law, to the very man in the audience, the audience then and now, all men sinners throughout all history and failing to keep the whole law, even the purported masters of the law of that day utter failures, the Scribes and Pharisees? (The worst failures, according to the Lord Jesus, right in there with the devil, as their behavior even proved.) Your reading of that scripture makes no common sense. Wouldn't it be ridiculous for the Lord Jesus to die for the sins of others, if just a reminder to eat turkey sausage would have satisfied the justice of a Holy God, where it's not baseball, rather one sin and you're out of the Garden, the walking dead?

And how are you, who do not repent and believe in the blood of the Lord Jesus, going to pay for your sins and redeem yourselves from the wrath of God and hell, when you stand before that Holy God, having rejected His grace?

fzappa13
October 16th, 2015, 01:24 PM
I think PJ pointed to the right scriptures but didn't elaborate and I understand why ... it shouldn't be necessary. ALL LEVITICAL ORDINANCES ARE SYMBOLIC AND PROPHETIC.

The symbolic/prophetic meaning of clean and unclean (jew/gentile) was no longer significant at the point of Christ's sacrifice. "What God hath cleansed call though not common." A sacrifice sufficient once for any and all who would embrace it, Jew and Gentile alike. That's pretty plain ... except where the spirit of contention continues to flourish. Said spirit being alive and well in this joint.

JonahofAkron
October 16th, 2015, 01:57 PM
I will admit to confusion as to which OT commands to keep.
The best way I have resolved this for myself is to keep the ones which Christ definitely kept. I do this because where I feel confused about "the word" (meaning the Bible), I just have to look at "the Word" or Jesus as a living interpretation of that word.

For instance, I don't see Jesus sacrificing any animal, and so I don't.
Nice.

iouae
October 16th, 2015, 01:58 PM
The symbolic/prophetic meaning of clean and unclean (jew/gentile) was no longer significant at the point of Christ's sacrifice.

Consider this. If a person ate something unclean, then they had to wash and were unclean until sunset.

The only consequence of being unclean was that you could not enter the Temple while unclean.

Now if there is no Temple, what consequence is there to being unclean?

Thus I would instead say "The symbolic/prophetic meaning of clean and unclean (jew/gentile) was no longer significant at the point of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem".

Even after Christ's sacrifice, you would not have been allowed into "church" (the temple) if you were unclean.

genuineoriginal
October 16th, 2015, 02:02 PM
Tell me Daqq, is the Decalogue a sum of ten ordinances or not? If that's not enough, let me prove otherwise that Paul meant the Decalogue. Read Rom. 7:1-7. That's an allegory of Paul about the widow who got freedom from the Law with the death of her husband. And Paul mean with that allegory our freedom of the Law with the death of Jesus. If you don't believe, read verse 7 and tell me where is it written "Thou shall not covet" if not in the Decalogue?
If Paul meant freedom from obeying the Law in Romans 7:1-7, he would not also have written this:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

genuineoriginal
October 16th, 2015, 02:10 PM
I don't see Jesus sacrificing any animal, and so I don't.

Deuteronomy 16:16
16 Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the Lord empty:
So, what do you suppose Jesus did to fulfill this commandment?

daqq
October 16th, 2015, 02:13 PM
Tell me Daqq, is the Decalogue a sum of ten ordinances or not? If that's not enough, let me prove otherwise that Paul meant the Decalogue. Read Rom. 7:1-7. That's an allegory of Paul about the widow who got freedom from the Law with the death of her husband. And Paul mean with that allegory our freedom of the Law with the death of Jesus. If you don't believe, read verse 7 and tell me where is it written "Thou shall not covet" if not in the Decalogue?

It is not freedom from the whole Torah because of the death of her husband but rather freedom from the ordinances concerning fidelity to her counterpart-man because when her husband dies she is no longer under those particular ordinances, (that is common sense). Likewise in this passage we must remember that the two become one flesh and therefore the woman figuratively speaking becomes her man:

Romans 7:1-4
1. Know you not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law) how that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?
2. For the woman under a man is bound by the law to her man so long as he lives; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband, [that is, the ordinances concerning her husband].
3. So then if, while her husband lives, she becomes another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; [that particular set of laws-ordinances] so that she is no adulteress, though she become another man.
4. Wherefore, my brethren, you also are become dead by the law through the body of Messiah: toward the becoming of you another, to the rising from the dead, so that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

I know most will probably not agree with my understanding of this passage but it is what it is and there it is. No one becomes dead to the Law except by passing through it and allowing the flesh commands, (Sinai) to slay the old man which is carnal, (mortify your "members" which are upon your earth as Paul says, and likewise, "mortify the deeds of the body" and walk according to the Spirit, [the Testimony of Yeshua]). Paul alludes to this at the end of the same passage where he states that he serves both the "Torah of sin", (Mount Sinai which physical) when it comes to the flesh, and that he serves the "Torah of Elohim", (Mount Horeb which is supernal) when it comes to the mind:

Romans 7:14-25 KJV
14. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25. I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; [Horeb] but with the flesh the law of sin [Sinai].

Paul clearly states that he serves both and therefore neither is "abolished". :)

OCTOBER23
October 16th, 2015, 02:14 PM
Genuine & Daqq

YOU GUYS ARE FINALLY THINKING LIKE ME - GOOD SHOW !

The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?

Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,

nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers,

nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

WonderfulLordJesus
October 16th, 2015, 02:44 PM
There is no sin in eating a ground turkey patty seasoned with sage.

I also sprinkle cayenne on my turkey patties.

Thank you for that sage advice!

iouae
October 16th, 2015, 03:07 PM
Deuteronomy 16:16
16 Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the Lord empty:
So, what do you suppose Jesus did to fulfill this commandment?

He tithed.

genuineoriginal
October 16th, 2015, 03:16 PM
He tithed.
That would be difficult to prove, considering there is no record of Jesus growing crops or raising herds.
If there is no increase, then there is nothing to tithe.

However, another passage of the same commandment specifically mentions offering the blood of the sacrifice.

Exodus 23:14-19
14 Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year.
15 Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread: (thou shalt eat unleavened bread seven days, as I commanded thee, in the time appointed of the month Abib; for in it thou camest out from Egypt: and none shall appear before me empty: )
16 And the feast of harvest, the firstfruits of thy labours, which thou hast sown in the field: and the feast of ingathering, which is in the end of the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field.
17 Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God.
18 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the fat of my sacrifice remain until the morning.
19 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

jamie
October 16th, 2015, 03:43 PM
Jesus was not a farmer or rancher so he didn't tithe. Neither did Paul.

WonderfulLordJesus
October 16th, 2015, 04:34 PM
Jesus was not a farmer or rancher so he didn't tithe. Neither did Paul.

This touches on something you seldom see, actually, the opposite. People talk of the Lord and the law as if He is under the law. How much of the law involves dealing with a sinful people, in a wider sinful world, and, in fact, the Old Testament pointing to Jesus Christ, the Alpha and Omega, the solution, where the law fails? Christ is without sin, doesn't have problems with the law. Christ is the "I am," the Lord God, the Creator and Giver of the law! As He pointed out, He is Lord of the sabbath day, Matthew 12:8, greater than ordinances, greater than the temple. God is God, not man. If God wishes to abolish sabbaths, He is sovereign. If God wishes to establish a new covenant, He is sovereign. So, whenever I see people saying Christ had to be this or that, it just seems to me we don't really have any place or wisdom to evaluate what God should or should not do. Hypothetically, if the Lord said, for instance, "Tithing is for you, not God," that would be it. He is the Lord, and this is His sovereign right, and not for any man to judge.

daqq
October 16th, 2015, 04:56 PM
This touches on something you seldom see, actually, the opposite. People talk of the Lord and the law as if He is under the law. How much of the law involves dealing with a sinful people, in a wider sinful world, and, in fact, the Old Testament pointing to Jesus Christ, the Alpha and Omega, the solution, where the law fails? Christ is without sin, doesn't have problems with the law. Christ is the "I am," the Lord God, the Creator and Giver of the law! As He pointed out, He is Lord of the sabbath day, Matthew 12:8, greater than ordinances, greater than the temple. God is God, not man. If God wishes to abolish sabbaths, He is sovereign. If God wishes to establish a new covenant, He is sovereign. So, whenever I see people saying Christ had to be this or that, it just seems to me we don't really have any place or wisdom to evaluate what God should or should not do. Hypothetically, if the Lord said, for instance, "Tithing is for you, not God," that would be it. He is the Lord, and this is His sovereign right, and not for any man to judge.

So essentially your version of God is a God who made everlasting and eternal covenants, promises, and commandments, such as even the Sabbath, told His people to remember the Sabbath, sanctify it, and keep it holy, and then abolished all of it when he came in the flesh. This is precisely the folly of modern mainstream theology in that it first claims Yeshua to be "equal to the Father" and then employs false teachings attributed to Yeshua so as to nullify the commandments of the Father. But to each his or her own I suppose. :)

WonderfulLordJesus
October 16th, 2015, 05:07 PM
So essentially your version of God is a God who made everlasting and eternal covenants, promises, and commandments, such as even the Sabbath, told His people to remember the Sabbath, sanctify it, and keep it holy, and then abolished all of it when he came in the flesh. This is precisely the folly of modern mainstream theology in that it first claims Yeshua to be "equal to the Father" and then employs false teachings attributed to Yeshua so as to nullify the commandments of the Father. But to each his or her own I suppose. :)

There was nothing said as you characterize it. Please find somebody else to be gratuitously argumentative with, put words in the mouth of, perhaps who also shares your low reading comprehension skills. (It also couldn't hurt if you learned there are many profound differences between the new and old covenants, just as it may one day dawn upon you that there are not too many Old Testament Jews hanging around anymore.) I don't do the troll gig, never even threw food around much as a baby. Have a nice day.

daqq
October 16th, 2015, 06:10 PM
There was nothing said as you characterize it. Please find somebody else to be gratuitously argumentative with, put words in the mouth of, perhaps who also shares your low reading comprehension skills. (It also couldn't hurt if you learned there are many profound differences between the new and old covenants, just as it may one day dawn upon you that there are not too many Old Testament Jews hanging around anymore.) I don't do the troll gig, never even threw food around much as a baby. Have a nice day.

Your statement, which I highlighted in yellow, clearly implies that Yeshua as Master of Shabbat can "abolish sabbaths" if he wants to. The characterization that I responded to was a characterization that was created on your own part from your own words. Yeshua as a member of tribe Yhudah would never "abolish Sabbaths" as you have implied. You may not have actually said such a thing in straightforward language but that is the about only conclusion one may take from your words. However there is no place that even remotely suggests what you have suggested. You are essentially implying that Yeshua has said and done certain things that are unsupported by what is written; and this is because of your misunderstanding of Paul, and for placing those misunderstood words of Paul above the more clear teachings of Messiah on matters of the Law. If you do not interpret the words of Paul through the Testimony of Yeshua, (first and foremost) then you will not understand Paul. Likewise if you do not have a decent understanding of Torah neither will you understand the Testimony of Yeshua. This is precisely how you end up in the position where you have arrived, that is, suggesting as you do that God, who clearly proclaims that He does not change, has now abolished what He said was eternal and everlasting. In addition to all of this your response to me personally is rather immature with the "troll" insinuation so you have a nice day too. :)

1Mind1Spirit
October 16th, 2015, 06:39 PM
If you do not interpret the words of Paul through the Testimony of Yeshua, (first and foremost) then you will not understand Paul.

:cheers:

daqq
October 16th, 2015, 06:57 PM
:cheers:

:thumb: Paul understands Torah through the "new lenses" of Messiah:
And he follows Messiah to the "T". :)

jamie
October 16th, 2015, 06:57 PM
If you do not interpret the words of Paul through the Testimony of Yeshua, (first and foremost) then you will not understand Paul. Likewise if you do not have a decent understanding of Torah neither will you understand the Testimony of Yeshua.


Indeed. :thumb:

fzappa13
October 16th, 2015, 07:55 PM
Consider this. If a person ate something unclean, then they had to wash and were unclean until sunset.

The only consequence of being unclean was that you could not enter the Temple while unclean.

Now if there is no Temple, what consequence is there to being unclean?

Thus I would instead say "The symbolic/prophetic meaning of clean and unclean (jew/gentile) was no longer significant at the point of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem".

Even after Christ's sacrifice, you would not have been allowed into "church" (the temple) if you were unclean.

Do not confuse the temple with the light thereof ... there is a very important difference.

iouae
October 16th, 2015, 10:33 PM
Do not confuse the temple with the light thereof ... there is a very important difference.

I am sorry, but you are going to have to explain that to me.

I am not encouraging folks to eat unclean foods or make themselves unclean by touching a menstrous woman etc. I am just saying this is fairly irrelevant today because almost everyone you touch today, receive change from etc. is unclean and thus makes you ceremonially unclean. But so what? A woman with an issue of blood touched Jesus and He did not make a fuss over it.

MichaelCadry
October 17th, 2015, 04:13 AM
Dear 6days,

After reading about God not wanting pots of broth of unclean animals (pigs) being cooked by His people {I hope you know which verse of the Bible I am talking about here}, I have quit eating pork. It's been about two weeks now. It is difficult because there are so many pork foods out there. We just had ham and I couldn't have any out of a whole ham. We have to give most of the ham away to one of my roommate's sister and her family. My roommates can't eat it all by themselves and I'm not eating any, so pork leftovers I'm not going to worry about. I hope that I'm making the right decision. Trying to do what God wants me to, that's all.

Give Praise To God!!

Michael

chrysostom
October 17th, 2015, 04:57 AM
what good is a pig
if
you don't eat it

Ben Masada
October 17th, 2015, 11:54 AM
what good is a pig
if
you don't eat it

As good as those who eat them. Evidence? Read Mat. 7:6.

Ben Masada
October 17th, 2015, 12:05 PM
Dear 6days,

After reading about God not wanting pots of broth of unclean animals (pigs) being cooked by His people {I hope you know which verse of the Bible I am talking about here}, I have quit eating pork. It's been about two weeks now. It is difficult because there are so many pork foods out there. We just had ham and I couldn't have any out of a whole ham. We have to give most of the ham away to one of my roommate's sister and her family. My roommates can't eat it all by themselves and I'm not eating any, so pork leftovers I'm not going to worry about. I hope that I'm making the right decision. Trying to do what God wants me to, that's all.

Give Praise To God!!

Michael

Call hacavod Michael! That's what we say in Hebrew which means, all good to you for this achievement. Not that's a sin for you but that's a healthy step to take; if not for any other reason, for triquinosis cerebral.

fzappa13
October 17th, 2015, 04:59 PM
I am sorry, but you are going to have to explain that to me.

Try the last two chapters of Revelation.


I am not encouraging folks to eat unclean foods or make themselves unclean by touching a menstrous woman etc. I am just saying this is fairly irrelevant today because almost everyone you touch today, receive change from etc. is unclean and thus makes you ceremonially unclean.

Well, yes, but really? It's all about the temple but, what is the temple of God?


But so what? A woman with an issue of blood touched Jesus and He did not make a fuss over it.


Oh, He most certainly did. The question is why?

achduke
October 17th, 2015, 06:00 PM
Can keeping the Sabbath or refraining from pork erase sin? So excuse me while I believe in Jesus instead of the law

Keeping the sabbath and not eating pork will not erase sin but are they committing sin?

MichaelCadry
October 17th, 2015, 07:52 PM
Dear Ben Masada,

Thanks for the pep talk. It makes me feel better about my decision. I just love bacon, but I didn't have any when one of my roommates made some with his eggs a couple days ago. Oh, it smelled so good!! I should move. I'm joking!! At least, I can have eggs. So that's cool. No problem.

May God Bless Your Soul !!

Michael

jamie
October 17th, 2015, 07:55 PM
Thanks for the pep talk. It makes me feel better about my decision. I just love bacon, but I didn't have any when one of my roommates made some with his eggs a couple days ago. Oh, it smelled so good!! I should move. I'm joking!! At least, I can have eggs. So that's cool. No problem.


Turkey bacon, turkey sausage.

MichaelCadry
October 17th, 2015, 08:23 PM
Turkey bacon, turkey sausage.
Dear jamie,

What a wonderful idea! Thanks!! Yummm! Still, it doesn't taste as good as regular bacon, I must admit!! And it's probably the least of our worries on how to conduct our lives.

God Bless Your Heart,

Michael

MichaelCadry
October 20th, 2015, 02:03 AM
Bratwurst, Yummm!! And Polish Sausage with Sauerkraut and Fennel Seeds, like my Mom used to make. Delicious!! This is not an easy life!! Heheeeee!!

Michael

daqq
October 20th, 2015, 03:24 AM
Bratwurst, Yummm!! And Polish Sausage with Sauerkraut and Fennel Seeds, like my Mom used to make. Delicious!! This is not an easy life!! Heheeeee!!

Michael

Yes, indeed, twinkle twinkle little star . . . :shut:

Ben Masada
October 21st, 2015, 02:41 PM
Dear Ben Masada,

Thanks for the pep talk. It makes me feel better about my decision. I just love bacon, but I didn't have any when one of my roommates made some with his eggs a couple days ago. Oh, it smelled so good!! I should move. I'm joking!! At least, I can have eggs. So that's cool. No problem.

May God Bless Your Soul !!

Michael

And one of your roommates made for you some bacon with his eggs! Poor fella! Did you call the Paramedics in time?

Ben Masada
October 21st, 2015, 02:48 PM
Can keeping the Sabbath or refraining from pork erase sin? So excuse me while I believe in Jesus instead of the law

Hey Nonon, it is not my fault. You don't have to refrain yourself from eating pork and, you don't have to keep the Sabbath either. To refrain from either is not for you. Neither figures in the Noahide laws. But one thing I tell
you, he whom you worship as the son of God according to Acts 9:20 observed both as the Jew that he was.

daqq
October 21st, 2015, 04:11 PM
Hey Nonon, it is not my fault. You don't have to refrain yourself from eating pork and, you don't have to keep the Sabbath either. To refrain from either is not for you. Neither figures in the Noahide laws. But one thing I tell
you, he whom you worship as the son of God according to Acts 9:20 observed both as the Jew that he was.

Acts 15:20-29 is given to new gentile converts yet there is no commandment in the Torah concerning the eating of things strangled or choked. Some try to associate the statement with an animal that "dies of itself" but that is simply not what the Acts statement says. The Acts 15 declaration therefore not only concerns Torah but Essene-Jewish law and that which may offend ones brother, (eating krea-flesh of something that had the blood of a living soul, Genesis 9:4, Romans 14:21, 1 Corinthians 8:13). And for those who do not realize it Yeshua was not ashamed to call those who are willing to become sanctified his brethren. :)

MichaelCadry
October 22nd, 2015, 03:34 AM
And one of your roommates made for you some bacon with his eggs! Poor fella! Did you call the Paramedics in time?


Dear Ben Masada,

No, nothing like that. No one made anything for me. If I want some eggs, I can make them. But no bacon with them for me. That is what I was trying to say, but I was making a joke about it. Jesus didn't eat bacon. Neither do I.

Michael

:angel: :cloud9: :rapture:

MichaelCadry
October 22nd, 2015, 03:42 AM
Yes, indeed, twinkle twinkle little star . . . :shut:


Dear daqq,

It's okay. When I was younger, we ate some pork sausage. It's something I'll get over. Thanks!!

Michael

:think: :rapture:

daqq
October 22nd, 2015, 04:21 AM
Dear daqq,

It's okay. When I was younger, we ate some pork sausage. It's something I'll get over. Thanks!!

Michael

:think: :rapture:

You're quite welcome but that was simply a reference to a previous post. :shut:
("You shall not boil a kid-goat in his mother's milk"). :)

1Mind1Spirit
October 22nd, 2015, 04:22 AM
You're quite welcome but that was simply a reference to a previous post. :shut:
("You shall not boil a kid-goat in his mother's milk"). :)

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

daqq
October 22nd, 2015, 05:09 AM
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You likey? :) Likely for the same reason the Acts 15 injunction places only the initial "necessary things" upon new convert-kid-goats who are just starting off "in the milk of the Word", (Yerushalaim of above is our mother, [covenant]). Not that I was saying anyone in particular is a kid-goat but for the sake of such as are. :)

1Mind1Spirit
October 22nd, 2015, 02:00 PM
You likey? :) Likely for the same reason the Acts 15 injunction places only the initial "necessary things" upon new convert-kid-goats who are just starting off "in the milk of the Word", (Yerushalaim of above is our mother, [covenant]). Not that I was saying anyone in particular is a kid-goat but for the sake of such as are. :)

Laughing is sometimes joyous and good for the soul.

First honey then milk.

Then......... shudder.

Ben Masada
October 22nd, 2015, 02:07 PM
Dear Ben Masada,

No, nothing like that. No one made anything for me. If I want some eggs, I can make them. But no bacon with them for me. That is what I was trying to say, but I was making a joke about it. Jesus didn't eat bacon. Neither do I.



That's right Michael, I was only kidding. If you follow the lead of Jesus as bacon was concerned, it is only a step closer to Isa. 56:1-8 but still a step closer.

Ben Masada
October 22nd, 2015, 02:14 PM
Acts 15:20-29 is given to new gentile converts yet there is no commandment in the Torah concerning the eating of things strangled or choked. Some try to associate the statement with an animal that "dies of itself" but that is simply not what the Acts statement says. The Acts 15 declaration therefore not only concerns Torah but Essene-Jewish law and that which may offend ones brother, (eating krea-flesh of something that had the blood of a living soul, Genesis 9:4, Romans 14:21, 1 Corinthians 8:13). And for those who do not realize it Yeshua was not ashamed to call those who are willing to become sanctified his brethren. :)

If you mean the Gentiles, I am not too sure as Jesus was concerned because he himself forbade his disciples to take the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles, especially Samaritans. (Mat. 10:5,6) It seems to me, Jesus was not too friendly with Gentiles, especially if they were from the Samaritans. Kind of weird though, considering that Israel had been assigned as light unto the Gentiles. (Isa. 42:6)

daqq
October 22nd, 2015, 05:07 PM
Laughing is sometimes joyous and good for the soul.

First honey then milk.

Then......... shudder.

:thumb:


If you mean the Gentiles, I am not too sure as Jesus was concerned because he himself forbade his disciples to take the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles, especially Samaritans. (Mat. 10:5,6) It seems to me, Jesus was not too friendly with Gentiles, especially if they were from the Samaritans. Kind of weird though, considering that Israel had been assigned as light unto the Gentiles. (Isa. 42:6)

One must understand exactly when and where ethnos means gentiles, nations, or heathen. Paul lays out a perfect example in Romans by including with ethnos his usage of the words for "Greeks" and "Barbarois", (whom he says he is indebted to). If one understands his usage of such words the same will begin to understand the seemingly enigmatic and elusive statements such as "the fullness of the ethnos having entered in". So then, when the fullness of the heathen have come in, then shall the Deliverer come forth out of Zion; and in this manner shall all Yisrael be delivered, and not before, because then the Father would not get the glory. And it is to each in his or her own appointed times: and the heathen of the Land are seven nations greater and mightier than the sons of Yisrael, (Deut 7:1) and seven mountains which are seven heads, and the seventh king is Legion and devours much swine. As 1M1S said above, shudder. :)

JonahofAkron
October 22nd, 2015, 07:28 PM
If you mean the Gentiles, I am not too sure as Jesus was concerned because he himself forbade his disciples to take the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles, especially Samaritans. (Mat. 10:5,6) It seems to me, Jesus was not too friendly with Gentiles, especially if they were from the Samaritans. Kind of weird though, considering that Israel had been assigned as light unto the Gentiles. (Isa. 42:6)

Perhaps He was hoping for His disciples to learn first and then go.

MichaelCadry
October 24th, 2015, 04:23 AM
That's right Michael, I was only kidding. If you follow the lead of Jesus as bacon was concerned, it is only a step closer to Isa. 56:1-8 but still a step closer.


Dear Ben Masada,

Thanks for the levity!! I am glad you were just kidding. We both have the same type of hearts. You're the Best!!

Praise The Lord!!!

Michael

:think: :rapture:

Ben Masada
October 24th, 2015, 01:56 PM
:thumb:

One must understand exactly when and where ethnos means gentiles, nations, or heathen. Paul lays out a perfect example in Romans by including with ethnos his usage of the words for "Greeks" and "Barbarois", (whom he says he is indebted to). If one understands his usage of such words the same will begin to understand the seemingly enigmatic and elusive statements such as "the fullness of the ethnos having entered in". So then, when the fullness of the heathen have come in, then shall the Deliverer come forth out of Zion; and in this manner shall all Yisrael be delivered, and not before, because then the Father would not get the glory. And it is to each in his or her own appointed times: and the heathen of the Land are seven nations greater and mightier than the sons of Yisrael, (Deut 7:1) and seven mountains which are seven heads, and the seventh king is Legion and devours much swine. As 1M1S said above, shudder. :)

I see "when the fullness of the heathen have come in, then shall the Deliverer come forth out of Zion" as the two carry-away of the Jews to Babylon. First, only the high class of Jews understood by king Jehoiachin, accompanied by all the princes and Jews from the high class including Ezekiel and Daniel. Then about 10 years later another layer of the Babylonian armies returned for the second last taken over of the Jews to exile in Babylon. This time the Temple was destroyed and the deliverer aka the Everlasting Righteousness came forth our of Zion aka the Shechinah to Babylon with the rest of the People. (Dan. 9:24; II Chron. 36:11-14)

Ben Masada
October 24th, 2015, 02:03 PM
Perhaps He was hoping for His disciples to learn first and then go.

There is no learning in hypothetical language, unless in an allegory or parable.

Ben Masada
October 24th, 2015, 02:10 PM
Dear Ben Masada,

Thanks for the levity!! I am glad you were just kidding. We both have the same type of hearts. You're the Best!!

Praise The Lord!!!

Michael

:think: :rapture:

Praise the Lord!

daqq
October 24th, 2015, 11:13 PM
I see "when the fullness of the heathen have come in, then shall the Deliverer come forth out of Zion" as the two carry-away of the Jews to Babylon. First, only the high class of Jews understood by king Jehoiachin, accompanied by all the princes and Jews from the high class including Ezekiel and Daniel. Then about 10 years later another layer of the Babylonian armies returned for the second last taken over of the Jews to exile in Babylon. This time the Temple was destroyed and the deliverer aka the Everlasting Righteousness came forth our of Zion aka the Shechinah to Babylon with the rest of the People. (Dan. 9:24; II Chron. 36:11-14)

Luke has Paul mentioning those seven heathen-nations in the Acts 13 discourse, (Acts 13:19) yet at the end of this same discourse Paul closes with the following warning and quote:

Acts 13:40-41
40. Beware therefore lest that come upon you which is spoken in the prophets:
41. Behold, you despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which you shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you [Habakkuk 1:5].

As we know this comes from HaNavi Habakkuk:

Habakkuk 1:5-10 KJV
5. Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvellously: for I will work a work in your days which ye will not believe, though it be told you.
6. For, lo, I raise up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation, which shall march through the breadth of the land, to possess the dwellingplaces that are not theirs.
7. They are terrible and dreadful: their judgment and their dignity shall proceed of themselves.
8. Their horses also are swifter than the leopards, and are more fierce than the evening wolves: and their horsemen shall spread themselves, and their horsemen shall come from far; they shall fly as the eagle that hasteth to eat.
9. They shall come all for violence: their faces shall sup up as the east wind, and they shall gather the captivity as the sand.
10. And they shall scoff at the kings, and the princes shall be a scorn unto them: they shall deride every strong hold; for they shall heap dust, and take it.

Those "hasty Chaldeans" are not physical entities but rather of an unclean spiritual nature, (demons and their doctrines) because clearly they come to take possession of dwellings not their own, (every man has his house) and their horses are swifter than leopards. This is therefore in accordance with the doctrine of Messiah concerning the seven heathen-nations of Deutereonomy 7:1, of which I spoke, which seven heathen-nations of the Land are symbolic of demons and their doctrines, as revealed in the Gospel accounts by the man of the Gergesenes possessed of the Girgashite "duo". In the Textus Receptus the word Gergasenos is found in the text of the Matthew account:

Matthew 8:28-32
28. And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, [GSN#1086 Gergesenos] there met him a duo daimonizomenoi, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
29. And, behold, they cried out, saying, What of us and you, Son of Elohim? are you come here to torment us before the appointed time?
30. And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
31. So the demons besought him, saying, If you cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
32. And he said unto them, Go! And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.

Original Strong's Ref. #1086
Romanized Gergesenos
Pronounced gher-ghes-ay-nos'
of Hebrew origin [HSN1622]; a Gergesene (i.e. Girgashite)
or one of the aborigines of Palestine:
KJV--Gergesene.

Thus the seven heathen-nations of of Devarim 7:1 are not literal physical peoples in the doctrine of Yeshua but, rather, used for typological enemies: the enemies to your soul and to your doctrine, which are the demons and their doctrines. Therefore we are to show them no mercy as the Scripture says. We are to make no "covenants" or "marriages" with them, (this kind of marriage is like as in the days of Noah). If you do not "choke them out" then they will choke out the Seed of the Word from the soil of your own heart, like tares among the wheat, and eventually kill you:

Deuteronomy 7:1-6 KJV
1. When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, [HSN#1622 Girgashiy] and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
2. And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
3. Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
4. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
5. But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
6. For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

Original Strong's Ref. #1622
Romanized Girgashiy
Pronounced ghir-gaw-shee'
patrial from an unused name [of uncertain derivation];
a Girgashite, one of the native tribes of Canaan:
KJV--Girgashite, Girgasite.

And as before said; beware of the seventh, (for he is Legion). :chuckle:

Lon
October 24th, 2015, 11:59 PM
What say you.... is it a sin to eat oysters, pork, *blood sausage, head cheese etc?
Other than the sausage/bacon cuts, pork and chicken are much leaner than beef.

Because of Mercury levels and PCB (http://www.greenfacts.org/en/pcbs/l-2/2-biomagnification.htm)s, you are better off eating shelled fish than most large fish by a long shot (https://www.arhp.org/Publications-and-Resources/Patient-Resources/Fact-Sheets/Healthy-Fish).

If you are Jewish, your choices become slim for kosher meats but gentiles should be mostly concerned with what is healthy and good for the body. There is no restriction on meat for gentiles, but these: Acts 21:25

glorydaz
October 25th, 2015, 12:05 AM
Other than the sausage/bacon cuts, pork and chicken are much leaner than beef.

Because of Mercury levels and PCBs, you are better off eating shelled fish than most large fish by a long shot (https://www.arhp.org/Publications-and-Resources/Patient-Resources/Fact-Sheets/Healthy-Fish).

If you are Jewish, your choices become slim for kosher meats but gentiles should be mostly concerned with what is healthy and good for the body. There is no restriction on meat for gentiles, but these: Acts 21:25

Some chickens are strangled. ;)

MichaelCadry
October 25th, 2015, 01:40 AM
Some chickens are strangled. ;)



Dear glorydaz,

You're right!! I just hate when they do that!! There must be another way, if they only knew. They just figure it's quick and easier. I can't quit eating chicken or duck, or goose, but maybe I will check out to make sure they are kosher. Since I won't have ham for New Year's Day, looks like Standing Rib Roast {Prime Rib}. I will have to have a more expensive meat for that holiday. Ham is cheaper, but I don't see any other choice. I have turkey for Thanksgiving and Christmas. I also used to have ham for Easter. Now it's going to be meat loaf {just kidding}! I'll just make some T-bone or Porterhouse Steaks.

Much Love, In The Name Of Jesus Christ,

Michael

:angel: :angel: :rapture: :cloud9: :cloud9:

daqq
October 25th, 2015, 02:47 AM
Other than the sausage/bacon cuts, pork and chicken are much leaner than beef.

Because of Mercury levels and PCB (http://www.greenfacts.org/en/pcbs/l-2/2-biomagnification.htm)s, you are better off eating shelled fish than most large fish by a long shot (https://www.arhp.org/Publications-and-Resources/Patient-Resources/Fact-Sheets/Healthy-Fish).

If you are Jewish, your choices become slim for kosher meats but gentiles should be mostly concerned with what is healthy and good for the body. There is no restriction on meat for gentiles, but these: Acts 21:25

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit", (Romans 2:28-29). And no true inward Jew, being circumcised in heart, would eat blood or the flesh of another living creature which was formerly a living soul; nor would such a one willingly cause the death of another living creature with a living soul just to fill his or her belly of the flesh. For the same reason, as stated previously herein, the earnest expectation of the whole creation groans in anticipation, awaiting the revelation of the sons of Elohim: for the earnest expectation of the creature knows that the true sons of Elohim will not hunt them down, cage them up, fatten them up, slay them, drain their blood, and eat their flesh. In addition, as also previously stated, it is not possible to drain all of the blood from an animal, whether it is considered kosher or not, and the Acts 15:20-29 injunction clearly says to entirely abstain from blood. Moreover the statement does not even stipulate the "eating of blood" only, but more broadly, to completely abstain from blood, which means keeping innocent blood off of your hands so that when you raise your hands to the Father in the heavens you do not have innocent blood on your hands, (as also already stated in this thread from Isaiah 1:11-12, 15).

Acts 15:20
20. But that we write to them, that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from pniktou, and from blood.

Acts 15:28-29
28. For it seemed good by the Holy Spirit and by us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
29. That you abstain from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from pnikton, and from fornication: from which yourselves thoroughly avoiding, [GSN#1301 diatereo - strictly observing - to avoid entirely] you shall do well. Be strong, (fare-well)!

Strong's Ref. #1301
Romanized diatereo
Pronounced dee-at-ay-reh'-o
from GSN1223 and GSN5083; to watch thoroughly, i.e. (positively and transitively) to observe strictly, or (negatively and reflexively) to avoid wholly:
KJV--keep.

And the passage from Acts 21:25, which you quoted but countermanded with your own remarks, actually helps to make the statement from Acts 15:20-29 even more clear because it employs epistello, (which is to enjoin-command in writing) and also uses phulasso which is to watch, be on guard, obey, and avoid. If you think that is what you are practicing, since you speak with such authority, perhaps then the next time you sit down for a juicy steak you might have it cooked rare and think about these passages concerning complete abstention from blood with every juicy bite. :)

Lon
October 25th, 2015, 08:06 AM
And the passage from Acts 21:25, which you quoted but countermanded with your own remarks, actually helps to make the statement from Acts 15:20-29 even more clear because it employs epistello, (which is to enjoin-command in writing) and also uses phulasso which is to watch, be on guard, obey, and avoid. If you think that is what you are practicing, since you speak with such authority, perhaps then the next time you sit down for a juicy steak you might have it cooked rare and think about these passages concerning complete abstention from blood with every juicy bite. :)
Er, we already do abstain. Blood goes bad quickly so with the exception of products specifically made of it, it is replaced with water and salt, which keep it much longer. Unless you are wringing your own chickens or something, all your meat is bled to help preserve it well. That 'blood' you see in the package is really water and a bit of meat it is saturating.

Most meat 'can' pass the kosher inspection but it is only a Jewish Rabbi that could/would care to do so.

Have a good Sunday.

daqq
October 25th, 2015, 08:24 AM
Er, we already do abstain. Blood goes bad quickly so with the exception of products specifically made of it, it is replaced with water and salt, which keep it much longer. Unless you are wringing your own chickens or something, all your meat is bled to help preserve it well. That 'blood' you see in the package is really water and a bit of meat it is saturating.

Most meat 'can' pass the kosher inspection but it is only a Jewish Rabbi that could/would care to do so.

Have a good Sunday.

Er, this has nothing to do with "kosher" and I believe you not concerning blood and blood plasma, (salt only helps to disperse and therefore hide it). But if you do not believe what the Holy Spirit in the Scripture clearly says, from Acts 15:20, 28, 29, and Acts 21:25, (which you quoted) then what does that mean within the framework of your particular brand of Calvinism? How can one be sure he is truly "elect" if the same "elects" for himself which portions of the Scripture he will consume and which portions are not suitable to his taste? :)

patrick jane
October 25th, 2015, 08:28 AM
I'm having pork fried pork, wrapped in pork, covered in pulled pork.

jamie
October 25th, 2015, 11:03 AM
I'm having pork fried pork, wrapped in pork, covered in pulled pork.


The apostle John said that the Word who became flesh made all things, and without him was not anything made that was made.

This means that Christ made the dietary restrictions for God's people.

Someone said Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. Do you believe that?

patrick jane
October 25th, 2015, 11:17 AM
The apostle John said that the Word who became flesh made all things, and without him was not anything made that was made.

This means that Christ made the dietary restrictions for God's people.

Someone said Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. Do you believe that?

Always.



Mark 7:19 KJV - Romans 14:13-14 KJV and 15.



1 Corinthians 8:9 KJV and 10.

jamie
October 25th, 2015, 12:01 PM
Always.

Mark 7:19 KJV - Romans 14:13-14 KJV and 15.

1 Corinthians 8:9 KJV and 10.


Are the scriptures you referred to in compliance with the law Christ gave to God's people? Or did Paul contradict the Law?

Paul testified, "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all.
(Acts 25:8 NKJV)

Paul did not teach Jews contrary to the Law.

Lon
October 25th, 2015, 05:16 PM
Some chickens are strangled. ;)




Dear glorydaz,

You're right!! I just hate when they do that!!

The meat would be blue if it wasn't bled out. All FDA Regulated meat is bled out and coated or soaked in saline solution as a preservative.

I believe you not concerning blood and blood plasma, (salt only helps to disperse and therefore hide it).
FOA and FDA regulations require it. Bacteria grows very quickly in blood and every slaughter house hangs meat to 'cure' it, which includes drying it out and allowing acids and sugars to soften it. Whatever 'blood' you think you see in a juicy steak isn't. It is hydrated hemoglobin (meat suspended in water).



But if you do not believe what the Holy Spirit in the Scripture clearly says, from Acts 15:20, 28, 29, and Acts 21:25, (which you quoted) then what does that mean within the framework of your particular brand of Calvinism? How can one be sure he is truly "elect" if the same "elects" for himself which portions of the Scripture he will consume and which portions are not suitable to his taste? :)
Romans 14:1-8

All meat is bled. All meat is 'kosher' which was more practical than spiritual for Israel, though I wouldn't contest the need for them to be a separate people devoted to God. Their observances, thus, were to remind them to be set apart for God. Jesus Christ, our Lord, God, and Savior, is the fulfillment of the law. Galatians is written to all gentiles and Hebrews is a reminder that even Jews were to trust wholly in the work of Christ.

Whatever separation or observances you follow is fine as far as I'm concerned, but Paul calls us to eat according to our individual convictions: Colossians 3:17 1 Corinthians 10:31 and again, Romans reminds us not to be contentious over the matter. I'm thankful for bacon as well as healthier cuts of chops and ham. -Lon


The apostle John said that the Word who became flesh made all things, and without him was not anything made that was made.

This means that Christ made the dietary restrictions for God's people.

Someone said Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. Do you believe that?
Jews still cannot/will-not eat shellfish or pork. 'Their' reason is to be a separate people and because of early health concerns.

We cannot blindly follow any/all Jewish law as gentiles. Hebrews even makes clear that there are Jewish practices no longer acceptable for a Jew-Christian and they are instructed to leave it behind and embrace the work of Christ. We need an educated Christianity, not one that floats on wives' tales and whimsy. Ephesians 4:14 James 1:6

Nanja
October 25th, 2015, 05:45 PM
I'm thankful for bacon as well as healthier cuts of chops and ham. -Lon


Me too!

~~~~~

rocketman
October 25th, 2015, 05:52 PM
I'm thankful for bacon as well as healthier cuts of chops and ham. -Lon


They are Infidelicios! :chuckle:

jamie
October 25th, 2015, 06:00 PM
...to leave it behind and embrace the work of Christ.


One of the works of Christ were the dietary restrictions on not eating scavengers.

The purpose of the restrictions was to teach that there is a difference between clean and unclean foods and to distinguish between what's holy and what's profane.

daqq
October 25th, 2015, 07:07 PM
One of the works of Christ were the dietary restrictions on not eating scavengers.

The purpose of the restrictions was to teach that there is a difference between clean and unclean foods and to distinguish between what's holy and what's profane.

:thumb:

Let the scavengers eat the scavengers and the dead eat the dead. :)

daqq
October 26th, 2015, 02:17 AM
The meat would be blue if it wasn't bled out. All FDA Regulated meat is bled out and coated or soaked in saline solution as a preservative.

FOA and FDA regulations require it. Bacteria grows very quickly in blood and every slaughter house hangs meat to 'cure' it, which includes drying it out and allowing acids and sugars to soften it. Whatever 'blood' you think you see in a juicy steak isn't. It is hydrated hemoglobin (meat suspended in water).

Romans 14:1-8

All meat is bled. All meat is 'kosher' which was more practical than spiritual for Israel, though I wouldn't contest the need for them to be a separate people devoted to God. Their observances, thus, were to remind them to be set apart for God. Jesus Christ, our Lord, God, and Savior, is the fulfillment of the law. Galatians is written to all gentiles and Hebrews is a reminder that even Jews were to trust wholly in the work of Christ.

Whatever separation or observances you follow is fine as far as I'm concerned, but Paul calls us to eat according to our individual convictions: Colossians 3:17 1 Corinthians 10:31 and again, Romans reminds us not to be contentious over the matter. I'm thankful for bacon as well as healthier cuts of chops and ham. -Lon


Jews still cannot/will-not eat shellfish or pork. 'Their' reason is to be a separate people and because of early health concerns.

We cannot blindly follow any/all Jewish law as gentiles. Hebrews even makes clear that there are Jewish practices no longer acceptable for a Jew-Christian and they are instructed to leave it behind and embrace the work of Christ. We need an educated Christianity, not one that floats on wives' tales and whimsy. Ephesians 4:14 James 1:6

It really does not concern me what you eat either but it was you who made a proclamation concerning what gentiles should and should not worry about eating. At the same time you quoted Acts 21:25 but countermanded that very statement with your own "proclamation to the gentiles", ( :) ). So unless you believe that you speak for all gentiles, (which I suppose is a completely different set of circumstances if you do) I would say that you have opened yourself up for what you have received so far; and to add to that, you do not understand as well as you presume what you read in Paul. Paul can be shown to have become an Essene, (no meat) as well as was Yeshua, that is, to one who is willing to see such things it can be shown: but to one who is not willing to see such things then, of course, the same can never be "proven". As for an "educated Christianity", which you say we need, do you understand how and why "the letter kills"? Why does Paul say this if you know? And why does he say that the Torah was being transgressed "through the letter", (and circumcision) if you happen to know? I would love to hear someone explain this for once in a satisfactory way.

Romans 2:27-28 KJV
27. And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by [GSN#1223 dia - through] the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28. For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

How were/are they transgressing the Law "through the letter" and how is it that "the letter kills", (1 Corinthians 3:1-6)? There is really only one way this can be true, by the Law, and if you have read some of the many other comments within this thread then perhaps you might know the answer. However, a carnivore will not likely see such a thing so perhaps it would have been better to heed the warnings of the Holy Spirit and the Apostles from Acts 15:20-29 and 21:25. :)

MichaelCadry
October 26th, 2015, 02:50 AM
The meat would be blue if it wasn't bled out. All FDA Regulated meat is bled out and coated or soaked in saline solution as a preservative.

FOA and FDA regulations require it. Bacteria grows very quickly in blood and every slaughter house hangs meat to 'cure' it, which includes drying it out and allowing acids and sugars to soften it. Whatever 'blood' you think you see in a juicy steak isn't. It is hydrated hemoglobin (meat suspended in water).



Romans 14:1-8

All meat is bled. All meat is 'kosher' which was more practical than spiritual for Israel, though I wouldn't contest the need for them to be a separate people devoted to God. Their observances, thus, were to remind them to be set apart for God. Jesus Christ, our Lord, God, and Savior, is the fulfillment of the law. Galatians is written to all gentiles and Hebrews is a reminder that even Jews were to trust wholly in the work of Christ.

Whatever separation or observances you follow is fine as far as I'm concerned, but Paul calls us to eat according to our individual convictions: Colossians 3:17 1 Corinthians 10:31 and again, Romans reminds us not to be contentious over the matter. I'm thankful for bacon as well as healthier cuts of chops and ham. -Lon


Jews still cannot/will-not eat shellfish or pork. 'Their' reason is to be a separate people and because of early health concerns.

We cannot blindly follow any/all Jewish law as gentiles. Hebrews even makes clear that there are Jewish practices no longer acceptable for a Jew-Christian and they are instructed to leave it behind and embrace the work of Christ. We need an educated Christianity, not one that floats on wives' tales and whimsy. Ephesians 4:14 James 1:6


Dear Lon,

I'm very interested in all that you are saying here. Very interesting!! Thanks!!!

Praise The Lord!!

Michael

MichaelCadry
October 26th, 2015, 03:10 AM
Dear patrick jane, Lon, Daqq, Rocketman, glorydaz, Nanja and Jamie,

I've written this post for the third time now. I lost the first two times. Eeek!! I went to copy the 2nd time, so I wouldn't lose it, and it got lost anyway. One more time and that's it.

Jamie, you have a wonderful point on us people eating scavengers of the ocean floor, etc. like the crabs, which have no fin. But lobster and shrimp have a tail fin, so they are fine with me. Lobster is my favorite food, even more than Prime Rib. Dip it in garlic lemon butter sauce. Yummm!! But now, no more crab legs. Or oysters, clams, scallops, etc. Now, about pork. I figure that the USDA makes sure we don't eat pork with worms and get trichinosis. There is no USDA in Mexico and I had a friend get trichinosis on his visit to Mexico. So during Armageddon, I don't think there will be people from the USDA worrying about whether pork is clean. There will be much more going on than worrying about pork. So be careful.

God Be With You All,

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :rapture: :rapture:

daqq
October 26th, 2015, 03:25 AM
Dear patrick jane, Lon, Daqq and Jamie,

I've written this post for the third time now. I lost the first two times. Eeek!! I went to copy the 2nd time, so I wouldn't lose it, and it got lost anyway. One more time and that's it.

Jamie, you have a wonderful point on us people eating scavengers of the ocean floor, etc. like the crabs, which have no fin. But lobster and shrimp have a tail fin, so they are fine with me. Lobster is my favorite food, even more than Prime Rib. Dip it in garlic lemon butter sauce. Yummm!! But now, no more crab legs. Or oysters, clams, scallops, etc. Now, about pork. I figure that the USDA makes sure we don't eat pork with worms and get trichinosis. There is no USDA in Mexico and I had a friend get trichinosis on his visit to Mexico. So during Armageddon, I don't think there will be people from the USDA worrying about whether pork is clean. There will be much more going on than worrying about pork. So be careful.

God Be With You All,

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :rapture: :rapture:


God be with you too! By the way, I have read of a somewhat "mini-Armageddon" more than once: a Legion of Girgashites enter into about two thousand swine, the demon possessed herd rushes down a hillside into "the Lake", and they get choked out and perish in the washing of the water in the Word. :chuckle:

JonahofAkron
November 8th, 2015, 11:46 AM
Are the scriptures you referred to in compliance with the law Christ gave to God's people? Or did Paul contradict the Law?

Paul testified, "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all.
(Acts 25:8 NKJV)

Paul did not teach Jews contrary to the Law.

This is one of the most important points in understanding the writings of Paul. I'm surprised no one has jumped on it.

patrick jane
November 8th, 2015, 01:40 PM
Are the scriptures you referred to in compliance with the law Christ gave to God's people? Or did Paul contradict the Law?

Paul testified, "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all.
(Acts 25:8 NKJV)

Paul did not teach Jews contrary to the Law.

I'm saying all foods are ok to eat, the Bible (God) tells us so.

20695

iouae
November 8th, 2015, 02:03 PM
This is one of the most important points in understanding the writings of Paul. I'm surprised no one has jumped on it.

Paul kept the law strictly and encouraged Jews to do so.

But in Acts he gives a VERY OT-lite version of the law to the Gentiles.


Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

There are 1050 commands in the NT which I consider far more worthy of focus than the 613 OT commands.

And all should keep the 10.

daqq
November 9th, 2015, 05:43 AM
Paul kept the law strictly and encouraged Jews to do so.

But in Acts he gives a VERY OT-lite version of the law to the Gentiles.


Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

There are 1050 commands in the NT which I consider far more worthy of focus than the 613 OT commands.

And all should keep the 10.

The passage you quote from does not actually say "meats" but rather eidolothuton which is anything having been sacrificed to an idol or idols. Even if you purchased a prestigious and expensive book from a famous author, brought it home, laid it open before your eyes, and began consuming all of the words therein which you paid so dearly to obtain, you would likely be consuming "food" having been offered up to an idol, that is, the idol or idols of the author or authors: which idols are those much sought after all illusive illuminati eye of horus green-back bucks in your wallet that you forked over to obtain the blessing you received in exchange. Everything we put before our eyes to read is spiritual food; yet the translation you have quoted subverts the passage by adding "meats" and thereby limiting the statement to only one possible carnal meaning, "meats", which is false. :)

achduke
November 9th, 2015, 06:06 AM
I'm saying all foods are ok to eat, the Bible (God) tells us so.

20695

Food is OK to eat but the NT was first preached to the Jews. What was Food to the Jews? It was not blood, swine and shell fish. Food is not all animals.

JonahofAkron
November 9th, 2015, 07:30 AM
I'm saying all foods are ok to eat, the Bible (God) tells us so.

20695

Where?

Lon
November 9th, 2015, 07:48 AM
The passage you quote from does not actually say "meats" but rather eidolothuton which is anything having been sacrificed to an idol or idols. Even if you purchased a prestigious and expensive book from a famous author, brought it home, laid it open before your eyes, and began consuming all of the words therein which you paid so dearly to obtain, you would likely be consuming "food" having been offered up to an idol, that is, the idol or idols of the author or authors: which idols are those much sought after all illusive illuminati eye of horus green-back bucks in your wallet that you forked over to obtain the blessing you received in exchange. Everything we put before our eyes to read is spiritual food; yet the translation you have quoted subverts the passage by adding "meats" and thereby limiting the statement to only one possible carnal meaning, "meats", which is false. :)
You are waaaaay over-spiritualizing and wrong. You SHOULD read your bible a LOT more and debate with people a lot less. Off-hand, I can think of dozens of instances of stories where Hebrews read other literature and you are being foolish (and horribly juvenile-wrong).

Find ANY one instruction from Paul that forbids gentiles from eating what they have already been eating. The Acts passage doesn't do that, just describes the "way" meat is presented as something to pay attention to. He, as a Jew, observed what all Jews did and do, but there is a clear separation between what Jews were supposed to do, and what gentiles were:


Paul kept the law strictly and encouraged Jews to do so.

But in Acts he gives a VERY OT-lite version of the law to the Gentiles.


Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.


And all should keep the 10.
I.O.U. (An-Education) has paid you his I.O.U. in full. Pay attention, he is correct.

Lon
November 9th, 2015, 08:01 AM
I'm saying all foods are ok to eat, the Bible (God) tells us so.

Where?
Mar 7:14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand:
Mar 7:15There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him."
Mar 7:17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable.
Mar 7:18 And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,
Mar 7:19since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)


Act 10:10 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance
Act 10:11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth.
Act 10:12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air.
Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him: "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."
Act 10:14 But Peter said, "By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean."
Act 10:15 And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has made clean, do not call common."


1Co 10:25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.
1Co 10:26 For "the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof."
1Co 10:27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
1Ti 4:2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
1Ti 4:3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
1Ti 4:5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
1Ti 4:6 If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed.
1Ti 4:7 Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness;

daqq
November 9th, 2015, 08:51 AM
You are waaaaay over-spiritualizing and wrong. You SHOULD read your bible a LOT more and debate with people a lot less. Off-hand, I can think of dozens of instances of stories where Hebrews read other literature and you are being foolish (and horribly juvenile-wrong).

Find ANY one instruction from Paul that forbids gentiles from eating what they have already been eating. The Acts passage doesn't do that, just describes the "way" meat is presented as something to pay attention to. He, as a Jew, observed what all Jews did and do, but there is a clear separation between what Jews were supposed to do, and what gentiles were:

Your interpretation of the passage makes the scripture of no effect, null and void, because you know full well that no one here needs to worry about eating "meat" that has been sacrificed to an idol: yet if that is indeed the only thing that the statement is supposed to mean then you, by your interpretation, have effectually nullified the meaning of the statement. In addition Paul clearly tells you to walk according to the Spirit because if you walk according to the flesh you will die. Are you walking according to the Spirit in your interpretation of this passage or according to the flesh and what you like to put into your belly of the flesh? Do you even know what the Spirit is in this sense? It is the Testimony of Yeshua whose words are SPIRIT and LIFE and his apostles and disciples speak and write in the SAME WAY. As for your accusation of "waaaaay over-spiritualizing and wrong" it is you who does not believe the Testimony of the Son of God as you consistently show by your own commentary:

Revelation 2:20-23 ASV
20. But I have this against thee, that thou sufferest the woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess; and she teacheth and seduceth my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols [eidolothuton].
21. And I gave her time that she should repent; and she willeth not to repent of her fornication.
22. Behold, I cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of her works.
23. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he that searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto each one of you according to your works.

Perhaps it is you who needs to stop eating books sacrificed to the idols of the authors and start studying and the Word for yourself. This is supernal in meaning and even the same word from Acts 15:29, eidolothuton, is used in this passage, and speaks of the same things. Unless of course you think Jezebel was some other prophetess still living at the time this was written? You do know that this woman Jezebel is written about many years before, correct? You might want to take a look beginning at 1 Kings 16:31 and continue reading on from there so as to get some background information before you make anymore wild judgments based on your belly of the flesh. As it stands now you only reveal that you do not believe the Testimony of the Son of God written in the passage above. :)

achduke
November 9th, 2015, 08:59 AM
Mar 7:14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand:
Mar 7:15There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him."
Mar 7:17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable.
Mar 7:18 And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,
Mar 7:19since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)


Act 10:10 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance
Act 10:11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth.
Act 10:12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air.
Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him: "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."
Act 10:14 But Peter said, "By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean."
Act 10:15 And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has made clean, do not call common."


1Co 10:25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.
1Co 10:26 For "the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof."
1Co 10:27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
1Ti 4:2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
1Ti 4:3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
1Ti 4:5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
1Ti 4:6 If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed.
1Ti 4:7 Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness;






Acts 10 is talking about believing gentiles. Food was used as an example but it was talking about gentiles. Just read the interpretation which is already given in Act 11:18.

Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

1 Corinthians 10:25-27 is talking about eating food that was sacrificed to idols.

1 Corinthians 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:

1 Timothy 4:1-7 Is talking about Food the origin is broma.

Strongs Greek 1033. broma bro'-mah from the base of 977; food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonially) articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law:--meat, victuals.


What is food to a Jew at this time? It was not swine, blood or shellfish. 1 Timothy 4:1-7 is already happening in modern times. Just look at the radical Vegan and Peta movement. Not that there is anything wrong with being Vegan but when you push it onto someone radically then there is a problem.

jamie
November 9th, 2015, 09:07 AM
Paul said that the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

We should have the mind of Christ (Philippians 2:5).

The mind of Christ is obedience to God. Paul taught from the Hebrew Bible where God defined what is food and what is not food. Paul never taught anyone to disobey God.

rstrats
November 9th, 2015, 09:41 AM
Correct. Nowhere does scripture ever refer to unclean animals as food.

patrick jane
November 9th, 2015, 09:47 AM
The bottom line, without pages of posts, Lon showed exactly what I said. Everything is ok to eat.

Thanks Lon for your post -

achduke
November 9th, 2015, 09:49 AM
The bottom line, without pages of posts, Lon showed exactly what I said. Everything is ok to eat.

Thanks Lon for your post -

This is only true if the scriptures posted are taken out of context.

Wick Stick
November 9th, 2015, 11:32 AM
I'm surprised to discover that there are people who use the Bible to say that certain foods, such as pork, are unclean and sinful. Various verses seem to clearly indicate we can't defile ourselves by the type of food we eat.

Ex...Mark 7:18-19King James Version (KJV)
18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

I was using Acts 10, Peters vision, to show that there is no unclean foods. The counter argument is that the food in Acts 10 in only to be taken metaphorically.

What say you.... is it a sin to eat oysters, pork, *blood sausage, head cheese etc?
Sound like you're making too much out of the legality of "sin."

Use the spiritual law and some common sense instead. Is eating pork sausage a mistake? For me it usually is, since it gives me some indigestion and heartburn. It's probably not great for your heart or your waistline, either.

But try not to make it a salvation issue, eh? Sausage McMuffins don't send you to hell - they send you to the water closet.

Jarrod

chrysostom
November 9th, 2015, 12:53 PM
Sound like you're making too much out of the legality of "sin."

Use the spiritual law and some common sense instead. Is eating pork sausage a mistake? For me it usually is, since it gives me some indigestion and heartburn. It's probably not great for your heart or your waistline, either.

But try not to make it a salvation issue, eh? Sausage McMuffins don't send you to hell - they send you to the water closet.

Jarrod

you have to eat the pig
why else would we have it?

JonahofAkron
November 9th, 2015, 01:10 PM
Mar 7:14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand:
Mar 7:15There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him."
Mar 7:17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable.
Mar 7:18 And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,
Mar 7:19since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) You ignored the obvious context: Jewish tradition of handwashing before a decidedly Jewish meal. If you take out of it something that was not put into the discussion, you're in the wrong. Sorry, man. It's about non-washed hands making your foods unclean-a non-Torah based tradition that obviously needed the Messiah (the one that lives out Torah perfectly) to clarify.



Act 10:10 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance
Act 10:11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth.
Act 10:12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air.
Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him: "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."
Act 10:14 But Peter said, "By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean."
Act 10:15 And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has made clean, do not call common."


1Co 10:25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.
1Co 10:26 For "the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof."
1Co 10:27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. This has been answered by several people, but, for some unknown reason, we keep hearing about it. Acts is clear that Peter believes that the vision is in regard to PEOPLE-the mention of food after this vision is typify the relationship of Jews and Gentiles...not their different cuisines.


1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
1Ti 4:2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
1Ti 4:3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
1Ti 4:5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
1Ti 4:6 If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed.
1Ti 4:7 Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness;
This verse is either standing in condemnation of the Torah (something Paul clearly says that he would never do and certainly not by calling the Torah, something he held in high regard, "irreverent, silly myths") or it stands in favor of not adding to the Torah (something that no Jew was supposed to do; especially since in 2 Timothy 3:15 he defines what gives us "good doctrine").

How you can twist it to fit your preconceived notions is quite impressive, but quite wrong.

JonahofAkron
November 9th, 2015, 01:13 PM
The bottom line, without pages of posts, Lon showed exactly what I said. Everything is ok to eat.

Thanks Lon for your post -Nope.

Lon is usually very well spoken and has excellent ideas, but I very much disagree with what he's said here.

JonahofAkron
November 9th, 2015, 01:14 PM
This is only true if the scriptures posted are taken out of context. And others ignored. Why don't we talk about Romans 3:31? It clarifies so much of this argument.

JonahofAkron
November 9th, 2015, 01:23 PM
you have to eat the pig
why else would we have it?
Garbage disposal. It isn't necessary for every animal to have a purpose for humans in order to be useful and created with purpose.

Wick Stick
November 9th, 2015, 01:24 PM
you have to eat the pig
why else would we have it?
I guess you never saw the Flintstones...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/34/b3/ae/34b3ae781acc8be6e7cf89ab50f422a9.jpg

chrysostom
November 9th, 2015, 01:28 PM
Garbage disposal. It isn't necessary for every animal to have a purpose for humans in order to be useful and created with purpose.

we have a lot of garbage
and
not enough pigs
so
how many pigs can you handle?

jamie
November 9th, 2015, 01:36 PM
you have to eat the pig
why else would we have it?


We have rabid rats but that doesn't mean we should eat them.

achduke
November 9th, 2015, 01:49 PM
And others ignored. Why don't we talk about Romans 3:31? It clarifies so much of this argument.

Or this.

Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Deuteronomy 14:8 And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

Isaiah 66:16-17
16 For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.

17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

patrick jane
November 9th, 2015, 01:51 PM
pork and lobster - mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

JonahofAkron
November 9th, 2015, 01:54 PM
we have a lot of garbage
and
not enough pigs
so
how many pigs can you handle?I don't get it. What does that mean?

chrysostom
November 9th, 2015, 02:00 PM
I don't get it. What does that mean?

how are you going to get rid of the pigs
that
get rid of your garbage

Wick Stick
November 9th, 2015, 02:01 PM
I don't get it. What does that mean?
That you might have solved the problem of landfills.

Lon
November 9th, 2015, 02:09 PM
Your interpretation of the passage makes the scripture of no effect, null and void, because you know full well that no one here needs to worry about eating "meat" that has been sacrificed to an idol: yet if that is indeed the only thing that the statement is supposed to mean then you, by your interpretation, have effectually nullified the meaning of the statement. In addition Paul clearly tells you to walk according to the Spirit because if you walk according to the flesh you will die. Are you walking according to the Spirit in your interpretation of this passage or according to the flesh and what you like to put into your belly of the flesh? Do you even know what the Spirit is in this sense? It is the Testimony of Yeshua whose words are SPIRIT and LIFE and his apostles and disciples speak and write in the SAME WAY. As for your accusation of "waaaaay over-spiritualizing and wrong" it is you who does not believe the Testimony of the Son of God as you consistently show by your own commentary:

Revelation 2:20-23 ASV
20. But I have this against thee, that thou sufferest the woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess; and she teacheth and seduceth my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols [eidolothuton].
21. And I gave her time that she should repent; and she willeth not to repent of her fornication.
22. Behold, I cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of her works.
23. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he that searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto each one of you according to your works.

Perhaps it is you who needs to stop eating books sacrificed to the idols of the authors and start studying and the Word for yourself. This is supernal in meaning and even the same word from Acts 15:29, eidolothuton, is used in this passage, and speaks of the same things. Unless of course you think Jezebel was some other prophetess still living at the time this was written? You do know that this woman Jezebel is written about many years before, correct? You might want to take a look beginning at 1 Kings 16:31 and continue reading on from there so as to get some background information before you make anymore wild judgments based on your belly of the flesh. As it stands now you only reveal that you do not believe the Testimony of the Son of God written in the passage above. :)
I can read Greek with a need to use a parsing guide. I'm not a poor student, thus. Revelation isn't what we were reading and it has not a lot to do with this topic other than what meat was sacrificed to idols, so your long cloak and dagger distraction isn't really doing the distracting part. We were talking about gentiles as well as your Judaizing them. Read some of the verses I gave to the next person who asked about scriptures that spell this all out. Instead of 'lording' it over you, I gave you the tools to study to shew yourself an approved workman of God. You are a judaizer and one who would lord it over others instead of educating them. Why? Because you don't have an educated leg to stand on and so thrusting your authority is all you've got left. I'm interested in the scriptures and giving others the tools they need to discern God's Words for themselves with a confidence that only comes from reading it. I'm not into your distraction attempts. It isn't the way I do theology. I've no desire to lord it over people. Read the scriptures given, or don't. Your choice. It has nothing to do with my 'stomach' but how I live in a "Christian, gentile" home.

Ben Masada
November 9th, 2015, 02:12 PM
Paul said that the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

We should have the mind of Christ (Philippians 2:5).

The mind of Christ is obedience to God. Paul taught from the Hebrew Bible where God defined what is food and what is not food. Paul never taught anyone to disobey God.

Very good Jamie! I agree with you that the mind of "Christ" is obedience to God. But then, when you say that Paul never taught anyone to disobey God, what do you think of Rom. 10:4 when he said that Jesus was the end of the Law? To teach the end of the Law is no different from teaching to disobey God. Are you contradicting yourself then?

Lon
November 9th, 2015, 02:13 PM
Acts 10 is talking about believing gentiles. Food was used as an example but it was talking about gentiles. Just read the interpretation which is already given in Act 11:18.

Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

1 Corinthians 10:25-27 is talking about eating food that was sacrificed to idols.

1 Corinthians 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:

1 Timothy 4:1-7 Is talking about Food the origin is broma.

Strongs Greek 1033. broma bro'-mah from the base of 977; food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonially) articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law:--meat, victuals.


What is food to a Jew at this time? It was not swine, blood or shellfish. 1 Timothy 4:1-7 is already happening in modern times. Just look at the radical Vegan and Peta movement. Not that there is anything wrong with being Vegan but when you push it onto someone radically then there is a problem.
Be sure to distinguish passages. Some were given to gentiles, some a mixed audience of Jew and gentile converts, and some to only Jews. They have a 'culture' given by God, that requires them to observe specific rituals. Gentiles do not and it is wrong to Judaize a gentile and really impossible today anyway: there aren't many Jewish Christians that we'd join like they were doing in those days, confusing spiritual conversion with national identity.

Wick Stick
November 9th, 2015, 02:15 PM
how are you going to get rid of the pigs
that
get rid of your garbage
Obviously we feed them to the cows, or other animals that are "clean" to eat.

Do I hafta think of everything? :dizzy:

Lon
November 9th, 2015, 02:17 PM
This is only true if the scriptures posted are taken out of context.
:nono: Acts, while talking about gentiles, was ALSO talking about what Peter could eat. In FACT, the Spirit said "DON'T" call it unclean when Peter said "No!" It is a great mistake to misread those verses and not get the point Jesus and the disciples were making.

JonahofAkron
November 9th, 2015, 02:18 PM
Very good Jamie! I agree with you that the mind of "Christ" is obedience to God. But then, when you say that Paul never taught anyone to disobey God, what do you think of Rom. 10:4 when he said that Jesus was the end of the Law? To teach the end of the Law is no different from teaching to disobey God. Are you contradicting yourself then?
In Greek, the word telos can also mean goal or end; it certainly would make more sense for the goal of Torah to be Messiah-especially considering that Jesus lived the Torah out perfectly (though you may not share that idea).

Lon
November 9th, 2015, 02:24 PM
You ignored the obvious context: Jewish tradition of handwashing before a decidedly Jewish meal. If you take out of it something that was not put into the discussion, you're in the wrong. Sorry, man. It's about non-washed hands making your foods unclean-a non-Torah based tradition that obviously needed the Messiah (the one that lives out Torah perfectly) to clarify.

This has been answered by several people, but, for some unknown reason, we keep hearing about it. Acts is clear that Peter believes that the vision is in regard to PEOPLE-the mention of food after this vision is typify the relationship of Jews and Gentiles...not their different cuisines.
This verse is either standing in condemnation of the Torah (something Paul clearly says that he would never do and certainly not by calling the Torah, something he held in high regard, "irreverent, silly myths") or it stands in favor of not adding to the Torah (something that no Jew was supposed to do; especially since in 2 Timothy 3:15 he defines what gives us "good doctrine").
And they and you are wrong. It clearly talks about "what God has called clean" which was against the whole Jewish system and custom. The point is and was, that legalists miss the point and "think" what enters a man makes him unclean :doh: You guys are a convoluted Judaized mess.



How you can twist it to fit your preconceived notions is quite impressive, but quite wrong.
I twisted nothing. I "GAVE" verses. You guys are the weirdos. Scripture alone apparently doesn't suffice for you:
1Ti 4:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/1Ti%204.1) Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
1Ti 4:2 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/1Ti%204.2) through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
1Ti 4:3 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/1Ti%204.3) who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/1Ti%204.4) For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
1Ti 4:5 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/1Ti%204.5) for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
1Ti 4:6 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/1Ti%204.6) If you put these things before the brothers [like I am attempting to do here], you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed.
1Ti 4:7 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/1Ti%204.7) Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness;

JonahofAkron
November 9th, 2015, 02:26 PM
:nono: Acts, while talking about gentiles, was ALSO talking about what Peter could eat. In FACT, the Spirit said "DON'T" call it unclean when Peter said "No!" It is a great mistake to misread those verses and not get the point Jesus and the disciples were making.
Wow. That misreading thing is exactly what you're doing. For the writer of Acts to drop in a teaching about food in an area that would be completely unrelated doesn't fit what we understand of the writer and their ability to write the narratives. It is strictly about the Gentiles being included in the Spirit-something of this magnitude should be separate from a teaching on food because it is one of the largest scandals of the Jewish Gospel....but, for some reason you want to tack some antinomian ideas into a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy.....go figure.

JonahofAkron
November 9th, 2015, 02:27 PM
how are you going to get rid of the pigs
that
get rid of your garbage Hypotheticals, guys, hypotheticals.

achduke
November 9th, 2015, 02:28 PM
Be sure to distinguish passages. Some were given to gentiles, some a mixed audience of Jew and gentile converts, and some to only Jews. They have a 'culture' given by God, that requires them to observe specific rituals. Gentiles do not and it is wrong to Judaize a gentile and really impossible today anyway: there aren't many Jewish Christians that we'd join like they were doing in those days, confusing spiritual conversion with national identity.

That would be only true if you separate Gentiles from Israel. I do not see that they are separate.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

1 Corinthians 12-13
12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:


Even in Moses time any foriegners/strangers were grafted in and had to obey the same laws.

Exodus 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Ben Masada
November 9th, 2015, 02:30 PM
In Greek, the word telos can also mean goal or end; it certainly would make more sense for the goal of Torah to be Messiah-especially considering that Jesus lived the Torah out perfectly (though you may not share that idea).

Right, the goal of Torah is the Messiah but, Jesus was not the Messiah. The Messiah cannot be an individual. The individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation? I don't think so. The Messiah is not to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:35-37) Besides, the Messiah means the anointed one of the Lord. If you read Prophet Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord, aka Israel the Jewish People. Jesus was part of the Messiah as he was part of Israel for 33 years of his life but, an individual Messiah is out of cogitation.

JonahofAkron
November 9th, 2015, 02:35 PM
I
And they and you are wrong. It clearly talks about "what God has called clean" which was against the whole Jewish system and custom. You don't find it the least bit strange to have God completely disintegrate the instructions that He gave as the basis for proper relationship with Him?....or are you a fan of believing that He gave us the Torah in order to show us how much we couldn't keep it? Either way, you make Him a liar.


The point is and was, that legalists miss the point and "think" what enters a man makes him unclean :doh: You guys are a convoluted Judaized mess. Ok. Cool. And you still aren't answering the larger questions that your logic brings: Was Paul a liar? Is God a liar?

Please don't misconstrue my writing as calling you out for not doing something; that is legalism. I am simply answering the concerning trend of antinomianism in the Body of Messiah.




I twisted nothing. I "GAVE" verses. You guys are the weirdos. Scripture alone apparently doesn't suffice for you:
1Ti 4:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/1Ti%204.1) Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
1Ti 4:2 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/1Ti%204.2) through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
1Ti 4:3 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/1Ti%204.3) who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/1Ti%204.4) For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
1Ti 4:5 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/1Ti%204.5) for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
1Ti 4:6 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/1Ti%204.6) If you put these things before the brothers [like I am attempting to do here], you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed.
1Ti 4:7 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/1Ti%204.7) Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness; Yep. Twisted. You have done it several times concerning the Torah and apostolic writings, instead of letting the relationship of the Messiah and the Torah dictate from the outset what your relationship should be to it....not to mention Paul's writing about it in 2 Timothy 3:15.


Edit : took out disrespectful and sarcastic speech that didn't further my point. Rebuke accepted.

JonahofAkron
November 9th, 2015, 02:36 PM
Right, the goal of Torah is the Messiah but, Jesus was not the Messiah. The Messiah cannot be an individual. The individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation? I don't think so. The Messiah is not to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:35-37) Besides, the Messiah means the anointed one of the Lord. If you read Prophet Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord, aka Israel the Jewish People. Jesus was part of the Messiah as he was part of Israel for 33 years of his life but, an individual Messiah is out of cogitation.I thought that would be your sticking point. Thanks for corroborating the key basis for what I was trying to get at, though. That was nice of you. I will have to discuss your points further elsewhere as this is specifically about the food.

Lon
November 9th, 2015, 02:44 PM
That would be only true if you separate Gentiles from Israel. I do not see that they are separate.
That would explain a lot. I see more the opposite: that Jews need Christ rather than us needing Jewish laws. We learn 'from' Jewish writings but aren't to be overtly caught in the letter of the Law. As this was absolutely a problem in the Apostle's day, it should be no surprise that we are as divided today over the matter. I believe the lord-it-over crowd to be the ones who miss the forest for the trees. The Sabbath was made for man, and not man the Sabbath. While I have strong ties to Puritan Christianity, I am much more conscious of not hanging milestones nor Judaizing the next generation of Christians. It is, imo, wrong to teach scripture observance that doesn't carefully weigh the whole counsel of God. In Acts, the Jewish council tried very hard to keep gentiles from legalism. The Kingdom of God is NOT eating and drinking. Romans 14:12-23

JonahofAkron
November 9th, 2015, 03:01 PM
That would explain a lot. I see more the opposite: that Jews need Christ rather than us needing Jewish laws. Great point. I like that.

We learn 'from' Jewish writings but aren't to be overtly caught in the letter of the Law.Again, I would agree.

As this was absolutely a problem in the Apostle's day, it should be no surprise that we are as divided today over the matter.This is most definitely the case.

I believe the lord-it-over crowd to be the ones who miss the forest for the trees. The Sabbath was made for man, and not man the Sabbath.But regardless, the Sabbath was had. Even though Messiah utilized for healing at times, that still wouldn't be considered work in the way we use it today. Let's oversimplify to the point of explaining away.

While I have strong ties to Puritan Christianity, I am much more conscious of not hanging milestones nor Judaizing the next generation of Christians. It is, imo, wrong to teach scripture observance that doesn't carefully weigh the whole counsel of God. In Acts, the Jewish council tried very hard to keep gentiles from legalism. The Kingdom of God is NOT eating and drinking. Romans 14:12-23Again, I agree. I don't believe that I have left out the whole counsel of God in making these distinctions.

Lon
November 9th, 2015, 03:05 PM
You don't find it the least bit strange to have God completely disintegrate the instructions that He gave as the basis for proper relationship with Him?....or are you a fan of believing that He gave us the Torah in order to show us how much we couldn't keep it? Either way, you make Him a liar. No, I do not. I see a great distinction between a Jewish audience and a gentile one. The 'one' was "in Christ." To overtly Judaize based on that verse is the actual problem. It is what Galatians is addressing. Of course there was and is, Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free. Only "in Christ" are there none. If you take that too far, your theology would be out of whack.


Ok. Cool. And you still aren't answering the larger questions that your logic brings: Was Paul a liar? Is God a liar?
Neither. Peter never did eat but he 'could' have at that point. Why didn't he? Well, a couple of very good reasons. The 'first' was t
hat he was an apostle to one particular group. Remember?




Please don't misconstrue my writing as calling you out for not doing something; that is legalism. I am simply answering the concerning trend of antinomianism in the Body of Messiah.


As I said, this goes deeper in disagreement than a surface level. It really is about this issue of who is bound and who is set free and my concern is Judaizing which is mentioned specifically in many scriptures. Antinomial? Not as much, though certainly mentioned a few times, usually "within" Jewish concern and customs. Conversely, it is wise to pay attention to Galatians as well as clear examples of contention between the Apostles regarding the matter. Something very important transpired that is incredibly debilitating, if missed. Galatians 5:1

Yep. Twisted. You have done it several times concerning the Torah and apostolic writings, instead of letting the relationship of the Messiah and the Torah dictate from the outset what your relationship should be to it.
Just the opposite. I believe it is the lord-it-over crowd that gets this incredibly wrong. It is legalism for no other reason that "that's the way we have always done it." ALL the law and the prophets hang ONLY on loving God and Loving neighbor. All 'ritual' was either for health or, at the time, having something to do with devotion to God and man.


...not to mention Paul's writing about it in 2 Timothy 3:15. Whatever, though. Keep on hating, big guy.
Hate? Where? If you are apt to teach, stand as a man and show it. If you are apt to debate, do so without your emotions getting in the way. This is an important issue and it needs to be discussed in such a manner that God is glorified and His truth is upheld. I will contend for the faith, in good faith, believing that I am serving both Him and men (including you). When that no longer functions, I will redress the concern at that time, I take the two great commands to heart and endeavor always, to serve Him and serve His. I pray such finds me a faithful servant of both you and Him. Scripture calls us to balance. -Lon

achduke
November 9th, 2015, 03:09 PM
That would explain a lot. I see more the opposite: that Jews need Christ rather than us needing Jewish laws. We learn 'from' Jewish writings but aren't to be overtly caught in the letter of the Law. As this was absolutely a problem in the Apostle's day, it should be no surprise that we are as divided today over the matter. I believe the lord-it-over crowd to be the ones who miss the forest for the trees. The Sabbath was made for man, and not man the Sabbath. While I have strong ties to Puritan Christianity, I am much more conscious of not hanging milestones nor Judaizing the next generation of Christians. It is, imo, wrong to teach scripture observance that doesn't carefully weigh the whole counsel of God. In Acts, the Jewish council tried very hard to keep gentiles from legalism. The Kingdom of God is NOT eating and drinking. Romans 14:12-23

Salvation is not dependant on works. There were groups that tried to influence the apostles with works based salvation. Still once we are saved we are led to be obedient. The groups that taught circumcision saved could lead others to believe once they were circumcised they would have been saved. This is not true. The holy spirit may lead you to physical circumcision but if you have the Holy Spirit guiding them most probably you are saved.

Ben Masada
November 9th, 2015, 03:10 PM
I thought that would be your sticking point. Thanks for corroborating the key basis for what I was trying to get at, though. That was nice of you. I will have to discuss your points further elsewhere as this is specifically about the food.

True, but, for two reasons I have found freedom to pause from the swine sausage sin. First, you yourself crashed the thread by mentioning Jesus as the Messiah and, second, the sin from eating swine sausage is for Jews and not for Christians.

rstrats
November 9th, 2015, 03:36 PM
Lon,
re: "Acts, while talking about gentiles, was ALSO talking about what Peter could eat. In FACT, the Spirit said 'DON'T' call it unclean when Peter said 'No!' It is a great mistake to misread those verses..."


Assuming you're referring to the animals in the sheet by the word "it, I'm not aware where the Lord told Peter not to call them unclean. What do you have in mind?

Lon
November 9th, 2015, 03:40 PM
Wow. That misreading thing is exactly what you're doing. For the writer of Acts to drop in a teaching about food in an area that would be completely unrelated doesn't fit what we understand of the writer and their ability to write the narratives. It is strictly about the Gentiles being included in the Spirit-something of this magnitude should be separate from a teaching on food because it is one of the largest scandals of the Jewish Gospel....but, for some reason you want to tack some antinomian ideas into a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy.....go figure.
I'm just sad you don't see it. It is, in fact true, that the Spirit taught both, at the same time, one confirming strongly, the other. It HAD to be true about both or the point COULDN'T have been made. It would have cast doubt on a gentile's conversion otherwise. In this case, it is very clear Peter was hungry and that the Spirit told him that his refusal, before ever even knowing about the gentile connection, was about food. The Spirit told him in no uncertain terms, NOT to call unclean what the Spirit called clean. Was it undoing Jewish law? No, absolutely not. Peter would still, as apostle to the Jews, observe Jewish custom, as was necessary to reach them for Christ. "He" had no other choice. But, God was teaching you and I something in that passage as well AND it was very much about what made gentiles acceptable. See, they were the ones who did eat those meats and the Spirit specifically told Peter that they were clean. Why? Because the kingdom of heaven is about loving God and loving man, not following Jewish do's and don'ts and getting caught up in legalism. The only point of law, is to help us do the right things for the right reasons. Only Americans have to follow American laws. Diplomats have 'immunity.'

It does not make them less for not having to observe or laws or not becoming US citizens. That isn't the purpose of diplomats. Likewise, it is important to see distinction between Jews and gentiles. We are one in Christ, but you do not have to be a Jew to be in God's favor. THAT is what it means that there is no longer Jew or Gentile, male or female. It literally means there is no advantage to following Jewish law or trying to become Judaized. THAT is what it means that we are all one in Christ. It very much means we must trust ONLY in the work of Christ, whoever we are. Do I love my poor Judaized brothers? Yes. I'm just sad to see legalism clouding the prime directive to Love God and Love man and seeing legalities get in the way of a complete trust in Christ alone.

For this concern, I believe God more sovereign than the legal guy understands or allows. I believe Ephesians 2:10, that I am in a relationship that ISN'T one-sided. God will do His part and He is much more powerful than I am. If it is one-sided, it is all Christ, and my efforts are negligible. In Psalm 103, David sees the same thing, that we are frail and God is God. "My part" is more about trust than worrying about what I'm doing wrong or right. My job is to love God and love man as best as I can and to learn and grow in that endeavor. Scripture helps me see avenues for doing so, as well as examining my weaknesses in doing so that I may improve, but I am yet God's workmanship, and that means a LOT more God than me, even when it concerns myself. I'm a creature, He, the Owner Creator. - Lon

Lon
November 9th, 2015, 03:44 PM
Lon,
re: "Acts, while talking about gentiles, was ALSO talking about what Peter could eat. In FACT, the Spirit said 'DON'T' call it unclean when Peter said 'No!' It is a great mistake to misread those verses..."


Assuming you're referring to the animals in the sheet by the word "it, I'm not aware where the Lord told Peter not to call them unclean. What do you have in mind?
"Unclean animals." Peter had no idea of gentile analogy at the time. The Spirit was telling him that all animals were clean AND that gentiles eating them were cleaned in Christ, despite their supposed 'evil-pork-eating ways.' This passage HAD to be both or it couldn't have been either and gentiles would still be in sin and only Jews would be saved, to this day. Both, then, had to equally be true from this passage or none of it would be.

daqq
November 9th, 2015, 08:13 PM
I can read Greek with a need to use a parsing guide. I'm not a poor student, thus. Revelation isn't what we were reading and it has not a lot to do with this topic other than what meat was sacrificed to idols, so your long cloak and dagger distraction isn't really doing the distracting part. We were talking about gentiles as well as your Judaizing them. Read some of the verses I gave to the next person who asked about scriptures that spell this all out. Instead of 'lording' it over you, I gave you the tools to study to shew yourself an approved workman of God. You are a judaizer and one who would lord it over others instead of educating them. Why? Because you don't have an educated leg to stand on and so thrusting your authority is all you've got left. I'm interested in the scriptures and giving others the tools they need to discern God's Words for themselves with a confidence that only comes from reading it. I'm not into your distraction attempts. It isn't the way I do theology. I've no desire to lord it over people. Read the scriptures given, or don't. Your choice. It has nothing to do with my 'stomach' but how I live in a "Christian, gentile" home.

What I posted was the truth from the Scripture and, yes, it is absolutely related. All you are doing is propagating a lie because that is all the carnal minded man can do because he cannot see the things of Elohim. The point which was made in my previous post is also true of Cornelius in that he was indeed "slain" and his testimony was then taken to the brethren in Judea, (Acts 11:1) and Peter expounded his testimony to the brethren, and they received it, "ate" or partook of it, and glorified God, (Acts 11:18). They ate from the testimony of a gentile who was himself already in the process of becoming joined to the the house of Judah, (and likewise Cornelius and his household knew the immersion of Yochanan, Acts 10:37, Acts 11:16). Do you not know what it means when an Angel appears in your house and commands you what to do to be saved, (Acts 10:1-6)? What, your favorite books from your favorite teachers do not include any information about this event in your version of what you call "salvation"? And again does you version of the gospel include the water immersion of Yochanan? Have you also ignored that? Yeshua clearly tells you that you must be born of water first and then the Spirit. You have likewise ignored the immersion of Yochanan which is the washing of water into the Word; the water immersion into the Testimony of the Prophets and Torah, and therefore you do not believe what is written in those writings applies to yourself. The carnal minded man walks according to his belly just as the serpent was cursed to do in the very beginning. The carnal minded man must therefore be slain, but fear not, (lol) for if indeed you overcome in that day it will turn out for you as a testimony. Then shall your words be worthy of consumption. But I warn you, in that day six men will come by way of the higher gate:

Acts 11:12
12. And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the house of the man:

And these "six brethren" carry slaughter weapons in their hands, (Ezekiel 9:2).
Yes, Rise up Peter, Slay, and eat! O blind man what will you do in that day? :chuckle:

patrick jane
November 9th, 2015, 08:25 PM
What I posted was the truth from the Scripture and, yes, it is absolutely related. All you are doing is propagating a lie because that is all the carnal minded man can do because he cannot see the things of Elohim. The point which was made in my previous post is also true of Cornelius in that he was indeed "slain" and his testimony was then taken to the brethren in Judea, (Acts 11:1) and Peter expounded his testimony to the brethren, and they received it, "ate" or partook of it, and glorified God, (Acts 11:18). They ate from the testimony of a gentile who was himself already in the process of becoming joined to the the house of Judah, (and likewise Cornelius and his household knew the immersion of Yochanan, Acts 10:37, Acts 11:16). Do you not know what it means when an Angel appears in your house and commands you what to do to be saved, (Acts 10:1-6)? What, your favorite books from your favorite teachers do not include any information about this event in your version of what you call "salvation"? And again does you version of the gospel include the water immersion of Yochanan? Have you also ignored that? Yeshua clearly tells you that you must be born of water first and then the Spirit. You have likewise ignored the immersion of Yochanan which is the washing of water into the Word; the water immersion into the Testimony of the Prophets and Torah, and therefore you do not believe what is written in those writings applies to yourself. The carnal minded man walks according to his belly just as the serpent was cursed to do in the very beginning. The carnal minded man must therefore be slain, but fear not, (lol) for if indeed you overcome in that day it will turn out for you as a testimony. Then shall your words be worthy of consumption. But I warn you, in that day six men will come by way of the higher gate:

Acts 11:12
12. And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the house of the man:

And these "six brethren" carry slaughter weapons in their hands, (Ezekiel 9:2).
Yes, Rise up Peter, Slay, and eat! O blind man what will you do in that day? :chuckle:

There are a few exceptions; isolated incidents.

daqq
November 9th, 2015, 10:17 PM
There are a few exceptions; isolated incidents.

So then enter by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: but narrow is the gate, and straight is the way that leads into life, and few there be that find it. There is a way of the sons of light and a way of the sons of darkness; the sons of light walk in the light of Messiah, but the sons of darkness walk in the dark light of night, groping because of the darkness within themselves. Once upon the flicker of a flame there was a Baker who carried all his bread in three baskets over his head. One day the fowls of the air, which are the Wicked one, the Devil, and the Satan, came and stole all the bread from the uppermost basket of his head: do not allow the tares of the air to steal the bread from your head like Judas Simon Baker (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4512269&postcount=49), (Genesis 40:16-22). :crackup:

Lon
November 10th, 2015, 02:32 AM
What I posted was the truth from the Scripture and, yes, it is absolutely related. All you are doing is propagating a lie because that is all the carnal minded man can do because he cannot see the things of Elohim. And this is a tired canard of the weak-minded and lazy. You go ahead and assert your 'spiritual' superiority. It is very much bound in pharisaical whitewash who both missed the forest for the trees AND asserted their apparent prowess. You are a lord over men kind of chest-thumping guy. Hope you take a long hard look at your blowhard self. You started simpleminded and have, over the years, extrapolated to self-importance rather than seeking the mind of Christ. You thump your private interpretation instead of seeking Him in all things. No, for you, this is about me and you and you take my eyes off of the Savior if I go down your road. Again, I choose not to entertain your distractions AND hope I well reflect the image you cast, in service to you, whatever chips may fall. You need time for introspection and time with Jesus our Lord God.



The point which was made in my previous post is also true of Cornelius in that he was indeed "slain" and his testimony was then taken to the brethren in Judea, (Acts 11:1) and Peter expounded his testimony to the brethren, and they received it, "ate" or partook of it, and glorified God, (Acts 11:18). They ate from the testimony of a gentile who was himself already in the process of becoming joined to the the house of Judah, (and likewise Cornelius and his household knew the immersion of Yochanan, Acts 10:37, Acts 11:16).
You and I will never meet on this road. I believe Christ is the end of Jews and gentiles. You believe He is the means for gentiles to become an odd half-breed of Jew/gentile. There are plenty of Judaized Christians on TOL. It is far from what most of us believe. It offers bondage and Paul was insistent that gentiles not become bewitched (by those very esteemed Christian Jews). Their Judaizing was for them alone. Become an authoritarian Judaized Christian, then. It isn't something that those free in Christ need from you and we'll be vocal about the rejection. It isn't Christ we are rejecting, it is you and Judaized bonds Christ set us free from. In a sense, I empathize, we are to be in bondage to Christ, but I believe it looks a LOT less like you think it does. They are bonds of love where we are no longer called slaves/servants, but friends of the Living God. I pray you find that kind of release. You are in bondage to a prideful haughty religion and gentiles are warned from it. If Christ sets one free, he/she is free indeed. The Puritan mindset would preclude enjoying anything on this earth for fear that it is all carnal rather than to be received from the Maker of Heaven and Earth in thankfulness. Our job is to separate the carnal from the spiritual concerning the flesh. I still hug and kiss my family. That's flesh, but it doesn't mean 'carnal.' You, imho, are out of balance and legalistic, not for love's sake, but for mindless observance. I remind that ALL the law and prophets concern love alone.


Do you not know what it means when an Angel appears in your house and commands you what to do to be saved, (Acts 10:1-6)? What, your favorite books from your favorite teachers do not include any information about this event in your version of what you call "salvation"? And again does you version of the gospel include the water immersion of Yochanan? Have you also ignored that? Yeshua clearly tells you that you must be born of water first and then the Spirit. You have likewise ignored the immersion of Yochanan which is the washing of water into the Word; the water immersion into the Testimony of the Prophets and Torah, and therefore you do not believe what is written in those writings applies to yourself.
You are awkwardly mixing metaphors of scripture truth and then in an authoritarian fashion, are demanding your interpretation be accepted as gospel. I don't see your prowess as all that impressive NOR am I desirous of that lofty position myself. I simply want people to read and understand the scriptures and interpret them correctly, as I do you as well. It is, in fact, not a sin, to eat pork. It is VERY clear that what enters a man does not make him unclean. Mark 7:15 You are preaching the EXACT opposite of that verse (and this precise message is replete and insistent in several more important passages and instructions).


The carnal minded man walks according to his belly just as the serpent was cursed to do in the very beginning. The carnal minded man must therefore be slain, but fear not, (lol) for if indeed you overcome in that day it will turn out for you as a testimony. Then shall your words be worthy of consumption. But I warn you, in that day six men will come by way of the higher gate:
You confuse carnal with 'flesh' and there are heresies associated with this kind of high-minded denial of living in the flesh. The logical end to your thinking would to be to commit suicide to escape the carnal and flesh. This is NOT what God is calling you to do, but rather to discern what is good from what is bad. The world is created and sustained by Christ Jesus our Lord God Colossians 1:16-20 We are supposed to be understanding what is part of His intended design, and what is actually carnal. Adam and Eve weren't made 'carnal.' The earth was subjected to futility in that we might be set free, with it, from slavery in corruption Romans 8:19-21


Acts 11:12
12. And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the house of the man:

And these "six brethren" carry slaughter weapons in their hands, (Ezekiel 9:2).
Yes, Rise up Peter, Slay, and eat! O blind man what will you do in that day? :chuckle:
:nono: "Types" do not mean free interpretation. You can chuckle your way through faulty scripture study, but it isn't amusing to me. You CANNOT free-associate and call it gospel. ANY correlation between scriptures must be accessible AND recognizable to all, or it IS private interpretation, and you become lord, master, dictate, of that proclamation.

If my post does not stand up to scrutiny of any believer, who I desire to check facts and scripture, it isn't worth the electricity that it rides on. Truth must be verifiable to be reliable and it must stand on its own.

Thumping my chest or calling you carnal doesn't get-er-done. THAT would be fleshly and carnal, in actuality. Every cult and cult-minded jumps incredibly quickly to that horrid and 'carnal' carnal accusation. Imho, it is most often likely a carnal accusation, from carnal interest and self-promotion, itself. Anytime I infer myself between man and another'
s Creator, I'm thinking it is me, in the flesh, getting in the way. I desire to see men interacting with their God, and me standing on the side, not in the way. I nor you can ever be the mediator between man and Christ, the ONLY mediator. Don't over-glorify your scriptural prowess as if to ensure your indispensability. The scriptures attest clearly to themselves. We disagree and must learn to recognize what is in self, that argues with another. I will again, point out the factors that cause our chasm. I need to walk much more humbly before my God.

MichaelCadry
November 10th, 2015, 03:18 AM
And this is a tired canard of the weak-minded and lazy. You go ahead and assert your 'spiritual' superiority. It is very much bound in pharisaical whitewash who both missed the forest for the trees AND asserted their apparent prowess. You are a lord over men kind of chest-thumping guy. Hope you take a long hard look at your blowhard self. You started simpleminded and have, over the years, extrapolated to self-importance rather than seeking the mind of Christ. You thump your private interpretation instead of seeking Him in all things. No, for you, this is about me and you and you take my eyes off of the Savior if I go down your road. Again, I choose not to entertain your distractions AND hope I well reflect the image you cast, in service to you, whatever chips may fall. You need time for introspection and time with Jesus our Lord God.



You and I will never meet on this road. I believe Christ is the end of Jews and gentiles. You believe He is the means for gentiles to become an odd half-breed of Jew/gentile. There are plenty of Judaized Christians on TOL. It is far from what most of us believe. It offers bondage and Paul was insistent that gentiles not become bewitched (by those very esteemed Christian Jews). Their Judaizing was for them alone. Become an authoritarian Judaized Christian, then. It isn't something that those free in Christ need from you and we'll be vocal about the rejection. It isn't Christ we are rejecting, it is you and Judaized bonds Christ set us free from. In a sense, I empathize, we are to be in bondage to Christ, but I believe it looks a LOT less like you think it does. They are bonds of love where we are no longer called slaves/servants, but friends of the Living God. I pray you find that kind of release. You are in bondage to a prideful haughty religion and gentiles are warned from it. If Christ sets one free, he/she is free indeed. The Puritan mindset would preclude enjoying anything on this earth for fear that it is all carnal rather than to be received from the Maker of Heaven and Earth in thankfulness. Our job is to separate the carnal from the spiritual concerning the flesh. I still hug and kiss my family. That's flesh, but it doesn't mean 'carnal.' You, imho, are out of balance and legalistic, not for love's sake, but for mindless observance. I remind that ALL the law and prophets concern love alone.


You are awkwardly mixing metaphors of scripture truth and then in an authoritarian fashion, are demanding your interpretation be accepted as gospel. I don't see your prowess as all that impressive NOR am I desirous of that lofty position myself. I simply want people to read and understand the scriptures and interpret them correctly, as I do you as well. It is, in fact, not a sin, to eat pork. It is VERY clear that what enters a man does not make him unclean. Mark 7:15 You are preaching the EXACT opposite of that verse (and this precise message is replete and insistent in several more important passages and instructions).


You confuse carnal with 'flesh' and there are heresies associated with this kind of high-minded denial of living in the flesh. The logical end to your thinking would to be to commit suicide to escape the carnal and flesh. This is NOT what God is calling you to do, but rather to discern what is good from what is bad. The world is created and sustained by Christ Jesus our Lord God Colossians 1:16-20 We are supposed to be understanding what is part of His intended design, and what is actually carnal. Adam and Eve weren't made 'carnal.' The earth was subjected to futility in that we might be set free, with it, from slavery in corruption Romans 8:19-21

:nono: "Types" do not mean free interpretation. You can chuckle your way through faulty scripture study, but it isn't amusing to me. You CANNOT free-associate and call it gospel. ANY correlation between scriptures must be accessible AND recognizable to all, or it IS private interpretation, and you become lord, master, dictate, of that proclamation.

If my post does not stand up to scrutiny of any believer, who I desire to check facts and scripture, it isn't worth the electricity that it rides on. Truth must be verifiable to be reliable and it must stand on its own.

Thumping my chest or calling you carnal doesn't get-er-done. THAT would be fleshly and carnal, in actuality. Every cult and cult-minded jumps incredibly quickly to that horrid and 'carnal' carnal accusation. Imho, it is most often likely a carnal accusation, from carnal interest and self-promotion, itself. Anytime I infer myself between man and another'
s Creator, I'm thinking it is me, in the flesh, getting in the way. I desire to see men interacting with their God, and me standing on the side, not in the way. I nor you can ever be the mediator between man and Christ, the ONLY mediator. Don't over-glorify your scriptural prowess as if to ensure your indispensability. The scriptures attest clearly to themselves. We disagree and must learn to recognize what is in self, that argues with another. I will again, point out the factors that cause our chasm. I need to walk much more humbly before my God.


Dear Lon,

How about I share some of my experiences with you. When I was 18, the Lord visited me, and so did three angels {each a week apart}. You can't believe me? It doesn't matter. The Holy Ghost also visited me then. The Lord and each angel taught me a lesson. So did the Holy Ghost. They were excellent in their care of me. I was eating pork all my life, so they didn't care. They treated me as one of Them regardless. No problem at all that I had not been baptized in water yet. I was baptized in the Holy Spirit three times, before I was baptized in water. Every bit of it was fine with God. He loves me and Jesus loves me, and other people love me, pork or not. So I would tell you to do what you want.

Now, I only quit eating pork in October. I miss the bacon and ham, and split pea soup. I've got to tell you, it was brought to my attention that in the Bible, God mentions they were stewing swine broth on their stoves, or words to that effect, and it was not right with Him. Seeing and knowing His disgust with that made me choose not to eat pork any longer. You find God, you find Christ, and the first two commandments are the most important, but Jesus said the other commandments will culminate with you keeping all of the commandments of God, or words to that effect. I don't want to vex you with 'don't eat pork.' If you want to eat it, fine. If you want to fast for God, fine. If you want to not eat pork for God's sake, fine. I read how disgusted God was about the unclean broth on their stoves that made me change. But God did love me greatly, despite that I was eating pork all of my life, even after I was 18-59 years old. I chose not to eat pork because of how it made God feel.

Now, it may be God's Will that we CAN eat pork these days, because we have the USDA to make sure that we don't get tapeworm. Our ham and pork is safe, as compared to Mexico's, etc. I would eat pork and may continue as an afterthought to this post I am writing to you. It's probably okay to eat pork. But once Armageddon comes, and there is no USDA any longer, I would suggest that no one eats pork, or they will get tapeworm. They might die if that happens.

So that's my summary. God loved me tons despite I was eating ham, bacon, and bean or split pea soup. I took on not eating pork out of reverence to God. But then I thought, it's probably okay now because it is tested and okay. So I am going to keep eating bacon and ham soup. I think God will love me just the same. Christ and the USDA frees me from worrying about it.

Much Love Coming Your Way!!

Michael

:angel: :cloud9: :cloud9: :cloud9: :angel: :rapture:

daqq
November 10th, 2015, 04:39 AM
And this is a tired canard of the weak-minded and lazy. You go ahead and assert your 'spiritual' superiority. It is very much bound in pharisaical whitewash who both missed the forest for the trees AND asserted their apparent prowess. You are a lord over men kind of chest-thumping guy. Hope you take a long hard look at your blowhard self. You started simpleminded and have, over the years, extrapolated to self-importance rather than seeking the mind of Christ. You thump your private interpretation instead of seeking Him in all things. No, for you, this is about me and you and you take my eyes off of the Savior if I go down your road. Again, I choose not to entertain your distractions AND hope I well reflect the image you cast, in service to you, whatever chips may fall. You need time for introspection and time with Jesus our Lord God.



You and I will never meet on this road. I believe Christ is the end of Jews and gentiles. You believe He is the means for gentiles to become an odd half-breed of Jew/gentile. There are plenty of Judaized Christians on TOL. It is far from what most of us believe. It offers bondage and Paul was insistent that gentiles not become bewitched (by those very esteemed Christian Jews). Their Judaizing was for them alone. Become an authoritarian Judaized Christian, then. It isn't something that those free in Christ need from you and we'll be vocal about the rejection. It isn't Christ we are rejecting, it is you and Judaized bonds Christ set us free from. In a sense, I empathize, we are to be in bondage to Christ, but I believe it looks a LOT less like you think it does. They are bonds of love where we are no longer called slaves/servants, but friends of the Living God. I pray you find that kind of release. You are in bondage to a prideful haughty religion and gentiles are warned from it. If Christ sets one free, he/she is free indeed. The Puritan mindset would preclude enjoying anything on this earth for fear that it is all carnal rather than to be received from the Maker of Heaven and Earth in thankfulness. Our job is to separate the carnal from the spiritual concerning the flesh. I still hug and kiss my family. That's flesh, but it doesn't mean 'carnal.' You, imho, are out of balance and legalistic, not for love's sake, but for mindless observance. I remind that ALL the law and prophets concern love alone.


You are awkwardly mixing metaphors of scripture truth and then in an authoritarian fashion, are demanding your interpretation be accepted as gospel. I don't see your prowess as all that impressive NOR am I desirous of that lofty position myself. I simply want people to read and understand the scriptures and interpret them correctly, as I do you as well. It is, in fact, not a sin, to eat pork. It is VERY clear that what enters a man does not make him unclean. Mark 7:15 You are preaching the EXACT opposite of that verse (and this precise message is replete and insistent in several more important passages and instructions).


You confuse carnal with 'flesh' and there are heresies associated with this kind of high-minded denial of living in the flesh. The logical end to your thinking would to be to commit suicide to escape the carnal and flesh. This is NOT what God is calling you to do, but rather to discern what is good from what is bad. The world is created and sustained by Christ Jesus our Lord God Colossians 1:16-20 We are supposed to be understanding what is part of His intended design, and what is actually carnal. Adam and Eve weren't made 'carnal.' The earth was subjected to futility in that we might be set free, with it, from slavery in corruption Romans 8:19-21

:nono: "Types" do not mean free interpretation. You can chuckle your way through faulty scripture study, but it isn't amusing to me. You CANNOT free-associate and call it gospel. ANY correlation between scriptures must be accessible AND recognizable to all, or it IS private interpretation, and you become lord, master, dictate, of that proclamation.

If my post does not stand up to scrutiny of any believer, who I desire to check facts and scripture, it isn't worth the electricity that it rides on. Truth must be verifiable to be reliable and it must stand on its own.

Thumping my chest or calling you carnal doesn't get-er-done. THAT would be fleshly and carnal, in actuality. Every cult and cult-minded jumps incredibly quickly to that horrid and 'carnal' carnal accusation. Imho, it is most often likely a carnal accusation, from carnal interest and self-promotion, itself. Anytime I infer myself between man and another'
s Creator, I'm thinking it is me, in the flesh, getting in the way. I desire to see men interacting with their God, and me standing on the side, not in the way. I nor you can ever be the mediator between man and Christ, the ONLY mediator. Don't over-glorify your scriptural prowess as if to ensure your indispensability. The scriptures attest clearly to themselves. We disagree and must learn to recognize what is in self, that argues with another. I will again, point out the factors that cause our chasm. I need to walk much more humbly before my God.

Hilarious, you prove once again that you are everything you accuse others of being. Right from the start you call me a "blowhard" and then proceed to post three times as much as what I posted to you. And not only that but you are the Pharisee because I do not eat meat except for fish with scales that swarm in schools because they are not living souls, (as explained already in this thread which you clearly have not read) and because fish is likewise the only "meat" which Yeshua might have ever eaten, (Luke 24:42-43) and because fish is the only meat Yeshua ever sanctioned and blessed for anyone else to eat, (the feeding of the four thousand and the five thousand). You seek to justify yourself before men, just as your Pharisee fathers did in Luke 16:15, and because of it you have conveniently ignored my reasons already given in this thread for why I believe the way I do, which is the commandment from the Ten Words, "You shall not murder-kill", (PERIOD) which is physical and, unless you can prove it only means killing people, then it continues to mean any living creature with a soul. If you had understood, believed, and upheld this commandment from the Ten then you might have understood why beyond that physical law is the supernal understanding. In addition you have also ignored the warning and injunction from Acts 15:20-29 which clearly enjoins you to completely ABSTAIN from blood of any kind in any amount. This includes the blood on your hands for killing and eating the flesh of other living creatures when you lift up your hands in prayer according to the Prophet Isaiah, which also has already been quoted in this thread, which you have also ignored:

Isaiah 1:9-15 KJV
9. Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah [Romans 9:29].
10. Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.
11. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
12. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?
13. Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
14. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
15. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

Do you not hear Paul when he tells you in Romans 7:14 that the Torah is SPIRITUAL? If you kill another living creature or cause the death of another living creature by purchasing meat from a butcher; and then drain its blood or have its blood drained for you by a butcher; just so you can cook and eat its flesh to fill your belly: then you have innocent blood on your hands every time you lift them up to God. This is not me "thumping my chest" but rather standing against your affront to living creatures who cannot speak for themselves and your affront to the truth and commandments of God. In fact you are worse off than the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Jews because you know that you have no more need to make sacrifices and yet continue to murder-death-kill just to fill your belly of the flesh man who rules in your house. :crackup:

Lon
November 10th, 2015, 05:41 AM
Hilarious, you prove once again that you are everything you accuse others of being. Right from the start you call me a "blowhard" and then proceed to post three times as much as what I posted to you.
I suspected your fast and loose use of terminology as well as with scripture. They go hand-in-hand it is generally true that those who mishandle God's Word mishandle English as well. There are language rules and if you do not follow them, you get a whole lot wrong. Because of that, not many of us should teach or try to teach, let alone feed ourselves His word. The best thing a person wanting to learn God's word can often do, is go back to school and get A's in English class where they failed before. It greatly handicaps ones ability. Blowhard means asserting what you have no business asserting, not how much air you are using *(or energy typing). "Hilarious" quickly becomes "ignorantly sad" to the discerning.


And not only that but you are the Pharisee because I do not eat meat except for fish with scales that swarm in schools because they are not living souls, (as explained already in this thread which you clearly have not read) and because fish is likewise the only "meat" which Yeshua might have ever eaten, (Luke 24:42-43) and because fish is the only meat Yeshua ever sanctioned and blessed for anyone else to eat, (the feeding of the four thousand and the five thousand).
You are building wives tales upon wives tales, gossiping about your 'feelings' you have when wrongly reading God's word without discernment. I never called you a Pharisee, but said you were being pharisaical :doh:

You seek to justify yourself before men, just as your Pharisee fathers did in Luke 16:15, and because of it you have conveniently ignored my reasons already given in this thread for why I believe the way I do, which is the commandment from the Ten Words, "You shall not murder-kill", (PERIOD) which is physical and, unless you can prove it only means killing people, then it continues to mean any living creature with a soul.
:doh: Abel offered a better 'sacrifice' than Cain! :doh: I REALLY wish you amatures would leave off prognosticating what you obviously don't know. Eating fish, is 'killing fish.' You really don't know your bible or English well enough, at this point, to be trying to teach anybody anything. You are arrogant and prideful to even attempt it and need a lot of hard introspection for the 'reason' you insist on doing so. I don't care 'why' you are trying to 'justify' it, but you are very wrong and wrong concerning me. I am here trying to serve God and men, not trying to eschew my 'knowledgable prowess' or whatever. If it is of no service, I'm an unprofitable servant and will endeavor to become better.


If you had understood, believed, and upheld this commandment from the Ten then you might have understood why beyond that physical law is the supernal understanding. I'm not even sure of your 'carnal' understanding so certainly don't see much to your 'higher' understanding. God doesn't divinely 'zap' you with knowledge. The carnal mind doesn't understand because he/she isn't interested in bein God's creation and discerning what He'd teach. You are WAY off the beaten path of understanding and using 'carnal' canards as a beat-down to any contender, which is in my mind, fairly carnal and fleshly. How many times have you prayed while trying to adress me here? What is your purpose?


In addition you have also ignored the warning and injunction from Acts 15:20-29 which clearly enjoins you to completely ABSTAIN from blood of any kind in any amount. This includes the blood on your hands for killing and eating the flesh of other living creatures when you lift up your hands in prayer according to the Prophet Isaiah, which also has already been quoted in this thread, which you have also ignored:
The good news? Everyone else now, can see you are incredibly off-base and not grounded in English, let alone scripture. There are a lot of :doh: moments discussing this matter with you. I really wish you'd humble yourself instead of spouting off in what is clearly ignorance.


Isaiah 1:9-15 KJV
9. Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah [Romans 9:29].
10. Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.
11. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
12. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?
13. Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
14. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
15. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.I'm not at all sure 'you' understand what is written here. You are like a guy who looks at the pictures and goes off and builds the cabinet without reading a thing. Scripture isn't cabinetry and must be understood well within its content and context to rightly discern its points. We are supposed to 'study' AND 'to shew (SHOW) ourselves approved!'


Do you not hear Paul when he tells you in Romans 7:14 that the Torah is SPIRITUAL? If you kill another living creature or cause the death of another living creature by purchasing meat from a butcher; and then drain its blood or have its blood drained for you by a butcher; just so you can cook and eat its flesh to fill your belly: then you have innocent blood on your hands every time you lift them up to God.
Your ignorance is complete AND you are simply proffering your own pet peeves superimposed over scripture, REGARDLESS of what they actually do and do not say.


This is not me "thumping my chest" Yes. It is.

but rather standing against your affront to living creatures who cannot speak for themselves and your affront to the truth and commandments of God. Rather it is your tree-hugging ways, superimoposed upon scripture, to post your new-age animal-feel-good message over and ESPECIALLY against the clear teachings of scriptures, for your own vegan agenda.

In fact you are worse off than the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Jews because you know that you have no more need to make sacrifices and yet continue to murder-death-kill just to fill your belly of the flesh man who rules in your house.
As I said, I'm glad you spoke up because it pinpoints your fanaticism and heresies and earmarks you as an uneducated authority unto yourself without recognizing or appreciating the, in fact, actual words of Our Lord God and Savior. You love being a vegan in authoritative spotlight more than you love being Christ's at this point OR you are woefully ignorant and should sit down in church an avoid trying to teach while you rightly learn and discern God's written word.

I don't mean this to be the dress-down this comes across as, but I do mean to ask prideful men to sit down and learn for a change. You are wrong, flat wrong, and it needs to be both pointed out and shown as the bold ignorant/arrogant spectacle that it is. I am an unprofitable servant endeavoring to bring Him and His something of value and worth.

daqq
November 10th, 2015, 07:28 AM
I suspected your fast and loose use of terminology as well as with scripture. They go hand-in-hand it is generally true that those who mishandle God's Word mishandle English as well. There are language rules and if you do not follow them, you get a whole lot wrong. Because of that, not many of us should teach or try to teach, let alone feed ourselves His word. The best thing a person wanting to learn God's word can often do, is go back to school and get A's in English class where they failed before. It greatly handicaps ones ability. Blowhard means asserting what you have no business asserting, not how much air you are using *(or energy typing). "Hilarious" quickly becomes "ignorantly sad" to the discerning.


You are building wives tales upon wives tales, gossiping about your 'feelings' you have when wrongly reading God's word without discernment. I never called you a Pharisee, but said you were being pharisaical :doh:

:doh: Abel offered a better 'sacrifice' than Cain! :doh: I REALLY wish you amatures would leave off prognosticating what you obviously don't know. Eating fish, is 'killing fish.' You really don't know your bible or English well enough, at this point, to be trying to teach anybody anything. You are arrogant and prideful to even attempt it and need a lot of hard introspection for the 'reason' you insist on doing so. I don't care 'why' you are trying to 'justify' it, but you are very wrong and wrong concerning me. I am here trying to serve God and men, not trying to eschew my 'knowledgable prowess' or whatever. If it is of no service, I'm an unprofitable servant and will endeavor to become better.

I'm not even sure of your 'carnal' understanding so certainly don't see much to your 'higher' understanding. God doesn't divinely 'zap' you with knowledge. The carnal mind doesn't understand because he/she isn't interested in bein God's creation and discerning what He'd teach. You are WAY off the beaten path of understanding and using 'carnal' canards as a beat-down to any contender, which is in my mind, fairly carnal and fleshly. How many times have you prayed while trying to adress me here? What is your purpose?

The good news? Everyone else now, can see you are incredibly off-base and not grounded in English, let alone scripture. There are a lot of :doh: moments discussing this matter with you. I really wish you'd humble yourself instead of spouting off in what is clearly ignorance.

I'm not at all sure 'you' understand what is written here. You are like a guy who looks at the pictures and goes off and builds the cabinet without reading a thing. Scripture isn't cabinetry and must be understood well within its content and context to rightly discern its points. We are supposed to 'study' AND 'to shew (SHOW) ourselves approved!'


Your ignorance is complete AND you are simply proffering your own pet peeves superimposed over scripture, REGARDLESS of what they actually do and do not say.

Yes. It is.
Rather it is your tree-hugging ways, superimoposed upon scripture, to post your new-age animal-feel-good message over and ESPECIALLY against the clear teachings of scriptures, for your own vegan agenda.

As I said, I'm glad you spoke up because it pinpoints your fanaticism and heresies and earmarks you as an uneducated authority unto yourself without recognizing or appreciating the, in fact, actual words of Our Lord God and Savior. You love being a vegan in authoritative spotlight more than you love being Christ's at this point OR you are woefully ignorant and should sit down in church an avoid trying to teach while you rightly learn and discern God's written word.

I don't mean this to be the dress-down this comes across as, but I do mean to ask prideful men to sit down and learn for a change. You are wrong, flat wrong, and it needs to be both pointed out and shown as the bold ignorant/arrogant spectacle that it is. I am an unprofitable servant endeavoring to bring Him and His something of value and worth.

Wow, look at all this venom. I'm not starving or dying enough to eat from your poison or drink from the well of your venom. No wonder blowhards never quote scripture for the things they demand that everyone else simply accept on their word. Funny how you go all the way back to Abel thinking to be making your point and yet ignore the Prophets and Writings, such as Psalms, and kings of Israel such as David, who explain such things. You have no clue what you are saying or doing and you certainly should not be telling anyone else they have no right to speak or write about what they believe to be true from the scripture. You think Abel slaughtered some of his firstborn sheep and a blood thirsty God was pleased with that because you yourself love to eat the slain flesh of other living creatures. Bad news for you killer: the real God does not think like you do. The fish is very simply common sense. God does not make one living soul simply to be "food" for another living soul. The lesser fish that swarm in schools are not living souls because they are made as "food" for the greater sea life such as whales, dolphins, porpoises, and basically the larger creatures with "skins" as opposed to scales. If you say that God made the smaller fish to be living souls then you attribute to God the making of one lesser kind of living soul simply to be "food" for a greater and more powerful kind of living soul. Your God may indeed be that way but mine is not. Your theology is therefore unnatural and an affront to the original creation from the start. This you do because you think that God thinks just as you do and made every living creature just for you to hunt down, cage up, fatten up, slaughter by slitting their throats, ("humanely" of course) drain their blood, and then cook and eat their flesh. Yep, blood on your hands every time you spread them toward the heavens. As for me the Father has made a covenant between me, and the beasts of the field, and fowls of the heavens, and that was already explained with the passage which was already quoted in this thread too, (Hosea 2:18-23 which Paul also quotes from). If you walk according to the mind and eyes of the flesh it cannot be hidden because the stench comes not only out from your pores but your doctrine. :chuckle:

Lon
November 10th, 2015, 07:55 AM
Wow, look at all this venom. I'm not starving or dying enough to eat from your poison or drink from the well of your venom. :Plain:



No wonder blowhards never quote scripture for the things they demand that everyone else simply accept on their word.
:doh: I hope you are just ignorant rather than making up purposeful lies. You SHOULD know this is a lie, whether you are inept or not. :( In your next breath:


Funny how you go all the way back to Abel thinking to be making your point and yet ignore the Prophets and Writings, such as Psalms, and kings of Israel such as David, who explain such things.
More chest thumping. You are a child. Of 'course' I started in Genesis! :doh:


You have no clue what you are saying or doing and you certainly should not be telling anyone else they have no right to speak or write about what they believe to be true from the scripture.

Sorry, I've taught school. I can read and discern a bad paper as well as a good one. I DO, in fact, know what grades they have in English.


You think Abel slaughtered some of his firstborn sheep and a blood thirsty God was pleased with that because you yourself love to eat the slain flesh of other living creatures. Bad news for you killer: the real God does not think like you do. The fish is very simply common sense. God does not make one living soul simply to be "food" for another living soul.
There is blood in fish, and you do have to kill them, genius.


The lesser fish that swarm in schools are not living souls because they are made as "food" for the greater sea life such as whales, dolphins, porpoises, and basically the larger creatures with "skins" as opposed to scales. :dizzy:



If you say that God made the smaller fish to be living souls then you attribute to God the making of one lesser kind of living soul simply to be "food" for a greater and more powerful kind of living soul. Your God may indeed be that way but mine is not.
Er, no. :nono: No 'personal' gods. He is either God or He is not God and NEITHER you nor I get to dictate to Him how He must be. He is God. We are creatures owned by that God. He dictates to us, not we Him.


Your theology is therefore unnatural and an affront to the original creation from the start.
It is an affront to 'just you.' Don't 'spiritualize' your whims. There is a God, and you are not Him, chest-thumper.


This you do because you think that God thinks just as you do and made every living creature just for you to hunt down, cage up, fatten up, slaughter by slitting their throats, ("humanely" of course) drain their blood, and then cook and eat their flesh. Yep, blood on your hands every time you spread them toward the heavens. As for me the Father has made a covenant between me, and the beasts of the field, and fowls of the heavens, and that was already explained with the passage which was already quoted in this thread too, (Hosea 2:18-23 which Paul also quotes from). You really have no clue. This thread went from pork to "any meat" (except fish :dizzy:) not being acceptable. The Noahic covenant gave Noah anything as food and was specific about it. You 'not liking that?' No question, but it is you impressing God with your desires instead of listening to His. Do as you like, but don't claim you know what God is saying because you don't listen.


If you walk according to the mind and eyes of the flesh it cannot be hidden because the stench comes not only out from your pores but your doctrine. :chuckle:He said/she said. I don't play this inane game. It is, honestly brain-dead "first stupid defense thing I think of that 'looks' spiritual to me" and 'surely must make the other guy look like a pagan' sentiment. In just 'saying' that, it is almost throwing the gauntlet back at your carnal feet, but again, you have the uneducated audacity to throw that ignorant gauntlet in the first place, and readily seen as such. I have really said enough AND you have said enough that God and others can discern between you and I. There really is no other need for exchange here between the two of us. Our works prove themselves and I don't have to drag this out any longer. I pray you'll get a better grip on your pride and arrogance.

daqq
November 10th, 2015, 08:17 AM
:Plain:



:doh: I hope you are just ignorant rather than making up purposeful lies. You SHOULD know this is a lie, whether you are inept or not. :( In your next breath:


More chest thumping. You are a child. Of 'course' I started in Genesis! :doh:


Sorry, I've taught school. I can read and discern a bad paper as well as a good one. I DO, in fact, know what grades they have in English.


There is blood in fish, and you do have to kill them, genius.

:dizzy:

Er, no. :nono: No 'personal' gods. He is either God or He is not God and NEITHER you nor I get to dictate to Him how He must be. He is God. We are creatures owned by that God. He dictates to us, not we Him.


It is an affront to 'just you.' Don't 'spiritualize' your whims. There is a God, and you are not Him, chest-thumper.

You really have no clue. This thread went from pork to "any meat" (except fish :dizzy:) not being acceptable. The Noahic covenant gave Noah anything as food and was specific about it. You 'not liking that?' No question, but it is you impressing God with your desires instead of listening to His. Do as you like, but don't claim you know what God is saying because you don't listen.

He said/she said. I don't play this inane game. It is, honestly brain-dead "first stupid defense thing I think of that 'looks' spiritual to me" and 'surely must make the other guy look like a pagan' sentiment. In just 'saying' that, it is almost throwing the gauntlet back at your carnal feet, but again, you have the uneducated audacity to throw that ignorant gauntlet in the first place, and readily seen as such. I have really said enough AND you have said enough that God and others can discern between you and I. There really is no other need for exchange here between the two of us. Our works prove themselves and I don't have to drag this out any longer. I pray you'll get a better grip on your pride and arrogance.

No, it was not a lie, and you have just now proven what I said once again because, once again in this post, you have no scripture to support anything you have said. Do you not realize that you are arguing against all of the SCRIPTURE which I have already posted in this thread since my first post? Just because I feel no need to repost it all again for you does not mean it is not there to be found. Your argument is not with me but you seem to think foolishly that it is. You are derailing this thread now so I see no more need to even respond to your venomous attacks. :)

jamie
November 10th, 2015, 08:23 AM
...and because fish is likewise the only "meat" which Yeshua might have ever eaten, (Luke 24:42-43)...



Then came the Day of Unleavened Bread when the Passover must be killed. And He sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat." (Luke 22:7-8 NKJV)

The passover was killed and eaten.

daqq
November 10th, 2015, 08:33 AM
Then came the Day of Unleavened Bread when the Passover must be killed. And He sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat." (Luke 22:7-8 NKJV)The passover was killed and eaten.

We have even been over this too. Where is it written that Yeshua and his disciples ate the flesh of lamb or goat? It is not found anywhere. Yeshua, like Melki-Tzedek, brought forth BREAD and WINE. There is no literal flesh of lamb or goat at the Seder of the Master because they too are living souls.