|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,213
Members1,325
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
9 registered members (dedication, daylily, TheophilusOne, Daryl, Karen Y, 4 invisible),
2,493
guests, and 5
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?
#46661
07/26/03 01:07 AM
07/26/03 01:07 AM
|
Active Member 2013
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,102
Halstad, MN
|
|
I do not agree. Paul makes crystal clear in Rom. 9:7, 8 that the seed that is called in Isaac are the children of promise, not the children of the flesh. quote:
In Isaac shall thy seed be called....
...the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
I do rejoice, though, that we agree on something: Jesus was the one that gave all the precepts to Israel.
If you look at Mat. 5:19, Jesus used the word "commandments" in explaining the word "law." He then went on to quote directly and to explain two of the 10 (#6 & #7), and referred to at least one of the other eight (#3).
Can you find any of the ceremonial precepts mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount? Or did Jesus here primarily refer to the 10 by the word "commandments"?
Another good example would be Mat. 15:3, 4, where He calls the fifth of the 10 a "commandment." And in this passage He elevates this commandment above all the Jewish traditions.
I think it significant that not once in Revelation is the word "commandments" used until after Rev. 11:19, where the ark is seen. Thus Revelation 12:17; 14:12; and 22:14 are primarily referring to the 10 within the ark when they use the word "commandments." And these 10 would be the original tablets of which Moses got but a copy.
|
|
|
Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?
#46662
07/28/03 03:53 PM
07/28/03 03:53 PM
|
|
|
“3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. 6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8 In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.” Sorry Bob, Paul here is only talking to Jews. The focus of this passage is Israel, His own people. quote:
Can you find any of the ceremonial precepts mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount? Or did Jesus here primarily refer to the 10 by the word "commandments"?
Why Yes, Matt 5 states Divorce, oaths, eye for eye, and love for enemies, none of which is on the tables of stone.
quote:
I think it significant that not once in Revelation is the word "commandments" used until after Rev. 11:19, where the ark is seen. Thus Revelation 12:17; 14:12; and 22:14 are primarily referring to the 10 within the ark when they use the word "commandments." And these 10 would be the original tablets of which Moses got but a copy.
That idea is contrary to “entole” with is not used by John EVER to indicate the OT law. John ALWAYS uses Nomos to indicate the law, never entole. So you may logically think it is directed at the tables of stone, but according to the writing style and word usage of the one who wrote, that idea is just not correct.
|
|
|
Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?
#46663
07/29/03 12:01 PM
07/29/03 12:01 PM
|
Active Member 2013
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,102
Halstad, MN
|
|
Are you making sense? You maintain that Gentile believers are of the seed of Abraham, and yet in this passage where the seed is mentioned, you maintain that it can't be referring to Gentile believers? The fact remains that Paul declares plainly: quote:
In Isaac shall thy seed be called....
...the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
I asked which ceremonial precepts you could find in the Sermon on the Mount. Please be more specific and cite chapter and verse where these CEREMONIAL precepts are found in the Law of Moses.
None of the 4 issues you mentioned were ceremonial. Divorce would fall under the 7th commandment, and oaths under the 3rd. Divorce alos and eye for an eye would be civil legislation affecting the civil government of Israel, and love for enemies is by no means ceremonial (Ex. 23:4, 5). quote:
That idea is contrary to "entole" with is not used by John EVER to indicate the OT law. John ALWAYS uses Nomos to indicate the law, never entole. So you may logically think it is directed at the tables of stone, but according to the writing style and word usage of the one who wrote, that idea is just not correct.
Of course, my observation in Revelation demonstrates that you are wrong on this point.
Notice how you first said that this was so for the entire NT. I showed how you were incorrect by referring you to Matthew. Now you have narrowed your assertion down to just John's writings. But in order to prove your assertion, you would have to prove that each and every such usage by John cannot possibly include the 10, and this you cannot do.
Tell me, in Jn. 15:10, do the "Father's commandments" mentioned there also include the 10 or not? What was Jesus referring to there?
|
|
|
Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?
#46664
07/29/03 08:42 PM
07/29/03 08:42 PM
|
|
|
quote:
Are you making sense? You maintain that Gentile believers are of the seed of Abraham, and yet in this passage where the seed is mentioned, you maintain that it can't be referring to Gentile believers?
Contextually is doesn’t refer to gentiles. For example, if I say, “you naturalized Mexicans are now Americans”, does that make us who are not Mexicans not Americans? No! Does that make us who are Germans then Mexicans? No!
So the fact that Paul was addressing Jews and telling them that they are not automatically Abraham’s seed doesn’t not make gentiles also Abraham’s seed.
quote:
None of the 4 issues you mentioned were ceremonial. Divorce would fall under the 7th commandment, and oaths under the 3rd. Divorce alos and eye for an eye would be civil legislation affecting the civil government of Israel, and love for enemies is by no means ceremonial (Ex. 23:4, 5).
I’m sure you can fit anything under any command you want to. However, unless that is specifically stated in scripture, it doesn’t matter does it. It’s just your opinion.
quote:
Notice how you first said that this was so for the entire NT. I showed how you were incorrect by referring you to Matthew. Now you have narrowed your assertion down to just John's writings. But in order to prove your assertion, you would have to prove that each and every such usage by John cannot possibly include the 10, and this you cannot do.
Bob, I apologize if I seem confusing, I responded to so many people on similar issues I forget who I’m talking with.
To answer your question, I have always been focused on John’s perception because it was John who wrote it. You seem to want to ignore John’s understanding in favor of another’s because it supports your views. Well that is your right, but if you really wanted to understand what JOHN meant you would look at JOHN’s perception of entole, not anyone else’s.
quote:
Tell me, in Jn. 15:10, do the "Father's commandments" mentioned there also include the 10 or not? What was Jesus referring to there?
You need to read that again. Jesus states that HE keeps the fathers commands and WE keep HIS commands. He never states for us to keep the fathers commands. So since Jesus doesn’t say what the commands are that are between Him and the Father, we don’t know what they are only that they are not for us.
|
|
|
Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?
#46665
07/31/03 03:03 AM
07/31/03 03:03 AM
|
Active Member 2013
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,102
Halstad, MN
|
|
quote:
So the fact that Paul was addressing Jews and telling them that they are not automatically Abraham's seed doesn't not make gentiles also Abraham's seed.
True. But Paul didn't say that Gentile believers are not the children of promise in either Rom. 9:8 or Gal. 4:28. You assume that in Rom. 9, since Paul is making a point to Jews, he is only talking about Jewish children of promise, but the passage does not so say. quote:
I'm sure you can fit anything under any command you want to. However, unless that is specifically stated in scripture, it doesn?t matter does it. It's just your opinion.
???? I asked you where the Sermon on the Mount mentioned any ceremonial precepts. You named things that weren't ceremonial. Your response to my pointing this out I do not understand.
As far as John's use of entole goes, do you have any passage where John makes it clear that entole does not include the 10?
Since John and Matthew were both disciples of Christ, I would think they should have similar views on what entole meant to Jesus.
Further, if you read 1 Jn., John parallels sin with breaking the commandments and transgressing the law. Thus the sin, breaking the commandments, and transgressing the law are equivalent expressions.
John's defintion of sin thus is similar to Paul's. Oaul said that the law gives a knowledge of sin, and to illustrate his point, he quoted the 10th of the 10 Commandments.
John thrice mentions the commandments after the ark is seen in Revelation.
The commandments in the ark defined sin in terms of the OT sanctuary service. Take away the law out of the ark, and there was no reason to bring any sacrifices anymore.
Thus, I do not see how you can exclude the 10 from the meaning of [i]entole/i].
|
|
|
Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?
#46666
07/31/03 03:04 AM
07/31/03 03:04 AM
|
Active Member 2013
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,102
Halstad, MN
|
|
Do we really have to get mired in a discussion like this in order to determine whether God's end-time condemnation of pork eating in Is. 66 is still truth?
|
|
|
Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?
#46667
07/31/03 11:57 AM
07/31/03 11:57 AM
|
|
|
I agree, Bob.
This topic comes under the Health Food Laws of the Bible. And health applies to everybody, not only to the Jews. Also, we are Spiritual Israel, are we not? How much more then should it apply to us as Christians, unless we are truly not born again Christians, but only nominal Christians. The key thing is whether or not we have individually accepted Christ. If we have truly accepted Him, then we will be like Him in all things, including what we choose to eat and not to eat.
As far as Is. 66 goes, that is a point that we need to come to an understanding of.
|
|
|
Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?
#46668
07/31/03 04:28 PM
07/31/03 04:28 PM
|
|
|
quote:
True. But Paul didn't say that Gentile believers are not the children of promise in either Rom. 9:8 or Gal. 4:28. You assume that in Rom. 9, since Paul is making a point to Jews, he is only talking about Jewish children of promise, but the passage does not so say.
Sorry, there is no assumption when Paul starts out the passage by saying: “the people of Israel” in verse 4. Frankly, it seems silly to me that you are even question this.
quote:
???? I asked you where the Sermon on the Mount mentioned any ceremonial precepts. You named things that weren't ceremonial. Your response to my pointing this out I do not understand.
I guess I don’t know what your definition of “ceremonial” is then. I thought you meant those laws not on the tables of stone.
quote:
As far as John's use of entole goes, do you have any passage where John makes it clear that entole does not include the 10?
Bob, here are all the times John used “entole”: Jhn 10:18, Jhn 11:57, Jhn 12:49, Jhn 12:50, Jhn 13:34, Jhn 14:15, Jhn 14:21, Jhn 15:10, Jhn 15:12, Jhn 15:12, 1Jo 2:4, 1Jo 2:7, 1Jo 2:8, 1Jo 3:22, 1Jo 3:23, 1Jo 3:24, 1Jo 4:21, 1Jo 5:2, 1Jo 5:3, 2Jo 1:4, 2Jo 1:5, 2Jo 1:6.
All these texts refer to Jesus commands while here on earth, or God commanding Jesus, but none refer to the OT law or the ten C’s. In fact, most of these texts refer to Jesus “Law of Love”.
So how do I know John didn’t mean or include the 10 c’s in his use of entole? Because John used “Nomos” when referring to the 10 C’s or OT law, i.e John 1:14.
From a NT standpoint, the disciples predominately distinguished between the OT Law and the commands of Jesus as two different things. Even though Jesus did give the OT law to Moses, the Jews did not accept that. In addition, Jesus changed the focus of many of the OT laws like divorces, oaths, eye for an eye, love for enemies, etc..
So Jesus “modification” to the OT law was considered commands or teaching (Entole) of Jesus and the OT law was the law (Nomos).
quote:
I agree, Bob.
This topic comes under the Health Food Laws of the Bible. And health applies to everybody, not only to the Jews. Also, we are Spiritual Israel, are we not? How much more then should it apply to us as Christians, unless we are truly not born again Christians, but only nominal Christians. The key thing is whether or not we have individually accepted Christ. If we have truly accepted Him, then we will be like Him in all things, including what we choose to eat and not to eat.
As far as Is. 66 goes, that is a point that we need to come to an understanding of.
Daryl, I agree that this topic with Bob is off the issue. I want to stay within the boundaries of the forum, but I also feel I need to address incorrect biblical concepts when they are presented. So if you and others can espouse any ideas freely and not expect or want to address any challenge to those ideas, then I should be given courtesy.
For example, here are the errors that I see in just your last short post:
1. The health laws given to Israel (other than not to eat blood) have not been given to everybody and there is not text in scripture that states that.
2. No where in scripture does it say non-Jews are “Israel” and the term “spiritual Israel” does not exist in scripture. Gentiles can be “Abraham’s seed”, but that is not the same as Israel as technically “Israel” is Isaac’s seed.
3. Applying a moral statement that indicates that one will not be saved or are a “nominal Christian” because they don’t have your beliefs is also something I must challenge as this idea too is not stated in scripture.
So either we can discuss these issues or we can’t. But we should all have the same rules that are applied equally.
|
|
|
Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?
#46669
08/01/03 11:06 AM
08/01/03 11:06 AM
|
Active Member 2013
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,102
Halstad, MN
|
|
quote:
Sorry, there is no assumption ...
Yes, you are making an assumption. Just because Paul says which Jews are not Jews does not mean that he is only talking about Jews when he says who are children of promise. You are assuming he never is talking about Gentiles anywhere in these passages, but you have no basis for such an assumption.
Is. 56 speaks of Gentiles and eunuchs who have not/cannot become literal Jews. These folk are called blessed when they take hold of God's covenant and keep the Sabbath.
Is. 56 must be talking about the New Covenant, not the Old, since these folk have not/cannot become literal Jews. Vs. 8 is an allusion to the gathering in of the Gentiles under the ministry of Paul and others.
Paul's discussions are an extension of such concepts. He well knew that Is. 56 taught that there was another covenant, and that Gentiles who come under that covenant are still expected to keep the universal precepts of keeping the Sabbath and abstaining from blood and unclean animals.
"Ceremonial" precepts would be precepts that involve some sort of ritual that points forward to Christ. Some times such laws fall into another category as well.
For example, if you became unclean, you had to wash your flesh in water and be unclean until the evening. This could be considered a health law, but it was also ceremonial. The washing would represent the same as baptism, and the evening would represent when the Sun of Righteousness set, when He died on the cross. At sunset the sky takes on a crimson hue, not quite the color of blood, but close.
Regarding your list of texts, you skipped 1 Jn. 2:3 and Rev. 12:17; 14:12; and 22:14.
quote:
...but none refer to the OT law or the ten C?s.
You cannot prove that. Go ahead and try if you think you can.
Moreover, since the texts in Revelation all follow the revealing of the ark in 11:19, that ties the word entole in with the 10 Commandments.
John used nomos to refer to anything in the OT, as in Jn. 10:34 where Ps. 82:6 is said to be part of the nomos.
"From a NT standpoint, the disciples" taught that the OT was "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tom. 3:16). We know Paul was talking about the OT there because the previous verse mentions that Timothy's Jewish mother had taught him as a child from the OT.
Problem is that not a few professed believers absolutely refuse to be corrected or reproved by the OT Scriptures.
|
|
|
Re: What Is The Truth About The Eating Today Of Unclean Meat Such As Pork?
#46670
08/01/03 11:26 AM
08/01/03 11:26 AM
|
Active Member 2013
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,102
Halstad, MN
|
|
quote:
1. The health laws given to Israel (other than not to eat blood) have not been given to everybody and there is not text in scripture that states that.
Is. 66 does say that those still eating pork when Jesus comes will be destroyed.
Paul, quoting Is. 52:11, says that Christians should stay away from the unclean thing.
Noah took 7 cows and 2 pigs on board the ark, indicating that he was allowed to eat the clean, not the unclean, when he disembarked. There are indeed animals that all descendants of his are not to eat, as Lev. 17 indicates.
The motivation given for this in OT times was holiness, which is still something we are supposed to have today. quote:
2. No where in scripture does it say non-Jews are "Israel" and the term "spiritual Israel" does not exist in scripture. Gentiles can be "Abraham's seed", but that is not the same as Israel as technically "Israel" is Isaac's seed.
No, for Israel is technically Jacob's seed, not Isaac's. What about Esau?
Rom. 2 indicates that all those who are circumcised in their hearts are Jews. Rom. 9 indicates that all children of promise are counted as the seed. quote:
3. Applying a moral statement that indicates that one will not be saved or are a "nominal Christian" because they don't have your beliefs is also something I must challenge as this idea too is not stated in scripture.
Not so yet, but if you are still eating pork when Christ comes, then by the sure Word of the Lord in Is. 66, you will get left behind. I wouldn't want that to happen.
You can discount that text if you want, but why not play it safe? Especially when there is no NT passage that explicitly says otherwise. No NT passage says that you can eat "swine's flesh" when Christ returns and still go to heaven.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
