Soyeong, are you a Seventh-day Adventist?
Announcement
Collapse
Theology 201 Guidelines
This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?
While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.
Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.
Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.
Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.
Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Are Christians Permitted to Eat Unclean Animals?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by The Remonstrant View PostSoyeong, are you a Seventh-day Adventist?Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostNo, he's a Messianic Jew.
The Jewish followers of Christ may have had a general requirement to adhere to the Law of Moses until the fall of the temple. The continuing adherence to the Mosaic Law would have been partly been for the goal of maintaining some common ground with Jews who still were under the Law. We see pressure on Paul by Jewish followers of Christ in Acts 21. But imagine if these Jewish Christians had stood out as non-followers of the Law. As seen in Hebrews, there was even compulsion to avoid assembling together lest they be identified as Christians and then be persecuted.
It is interesting that the passage reiterates the instructions given for Gentiles.
Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
Paul wouldn't have had a reputation about being against the law for Jews if Paul's message to Gentiles had included adherence to Jewish law. There had to be some element of truth for the Jerusalem Jews to have thought Paul was preaching this also to Jews.
Comment
-
Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post1) The main point of the vision was not food, it was the fact that the Gospel was not reserved just for the Jews. It should not be the *first* place we look in discussing food laws. However, I do believe it is *a* relevant passage.
2) In this context, it is more likely that "common" and "unclean" are virtual synonyms than distinctly separate categories. More to the point, in v. 15, God corrects Peter not in the way YOU are suggesting, but by reminding him the He had "made" certain things clean, the clear intent being that those things *were* at one time "unclean."
See above. I don't believe you are interpreting the passage correctly.
This is a dishonest dumb-ass debating tactic, akin to "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
It is not disobedience if the Law is no longer in effect.
[quote]In Gal. 3:10, Paul directly alludes to the "curse" for disobedience promised in Deut. 27:26. He follows by asserting that Christ "redeemed us from the curse of the Law," and in light of the context and of other Pauline writings, there's a good chance this is a synecdoche meaning we are redeemed from the curse of having to live by the Law.
Psalms 119:1 Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord!
Not even earthly fathers given instructions to their children in order to curse them, so that is much more true for our Heavenly Father, who said that His Law was given for our own good in order to bless us (Deuteronomy 6:24). Again, in Deuteronomy 30:15-20, obedience to the Law brings life and a blessing, while disobedience brings death and a curse, so the Law itself is a blessing, not a curse, and and being set free from the curse of the Law is being set free from living in disobedience to it. In Titus 2:14, it says that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all Lawlessness, not that He gave himself to redeem us from the Law.
I have occasionally heard Law-enthusiasts claim that "Love your neighbor as yourself" covered how we are to relate to each other, and "Love the Lord your God..." covered all the various and sundry other laws. That's an interesting notion, but I believe it misses the essence of the point Jesus was making.
In any case, all three of the Synoptists include those "Two Great Commandments," albeit in somewhat different forms and contexts. Matthew says the Second is "like" the First, and some lexicons say the word (homoios) literally means "the same as." Luke actually combines the two into one. That is consistent with Paul in Rom. 13 and Gal. 5, both of which say that obeying the Commandment to love your neighbor as yourself is all that is needed to fulfill the whole Law.
Further, both Matthew and Luke include the instruction to "treat others as you wish others to treat you." In Matthew, this is explicitly said to sum up the entire OT (Law and Prophets).
You are reversing Paul's point by your cherry-picking. The next chapter (Rom. 4) shows that the *way* faith upholds the Law is that the Law itself declared that Abraham was justified by *faith*, irrespective of "works."
While it is true that Abraham believed God, so he was justified, it is also true that Abraham believed God, so he obeyed God's command to offer Isaac, so the same faith by which he was justified was also expressed as obedience to God, but he was justified by his faith, not by his obedience because our justification is not something that can be earned, which is the point that Paul was making in Romans 4:1-8.
This is, frankly, stupid mix-and-match Bible "study." Look to what 1 Peter itself says for what "holy conduct" means. Don't drag in the Obsolete Covenant unless Peter explicitly cited it. And if he did, you need to explain how and why he did it."Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostFor the record, I always clean the animals I eat before I eat them.
(at least, the ones I eat on purpose)"Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser
Comment
-
Originally posted by NorrinRadd View PostThe "correct way to interpret that" is within the context. Mark was the one who quoted Jesus there, and Mark explained directly that in saying that, Jesus "declared all foods clean."
Certainly Jesus considered Lev. and Deut. to be "Scripture." He also considered Himself to be I AM (John 8). As the One who revealed Himself and His memorial name to Moses at the burning bush, He had the authority to give the Law, and He had the authority to change or revoke it.
The issue that Jesus was discussing in Mark 7 was in regard to a man-made ritual purity law they were criticizing his disciples for eating with common hands, so Jesus should be interpreted as continuing to speak against that tradition rather than jumping topics to speaking against obeying the Father. It is far, far more reason to interpret Jesus as simply sticking to the topic of conversation."Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser
Comment
-
Originally posted by Soyeong View PostFor the record, the reason that God prohibited eating unclean animals was not because they hadn't been washed. :PThe first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou are arguing moral values, and I agree, the moral values of God do not change and we are obligated to obey them. But dietary laws given to the Israelites were not moral laws. They were purity laws, meant to keep the Israelites separate from the surrounding tribes. There is nothing inherently immoral about eating pork, or mixing textiles. The same with the temple ceremonies and laws. We don't have to follow those either.
A number of God's laws came with conditions under which they should be followed, so for example there is nothing wrong with not keeping the Sabbath holy when it is not the 7th day for the same reason that there is nothing wrong with not keeping God's laws in regard to temple practice when there is no temple in which to practice them. When the Israelites were in exile in Babylon, the condition for their return to the land was to first return to obedience to God's Law, which required them to have access to a temple that they didn't have access to while they were in exile, so we should be faithful to obey as much as we can obey. If we believe that God can be trusted to give laws for our own good in order to bless us, then we should have the attitude of looking for reasons for why we have the delight or getting to obey God's Law rather than the attitude of looking for every excuse under the sun to avoid following God's guidance. So there are both legitimate and illegitimate reasons for not obeying a particular law and there is a difference between someone who is not keeping the Sabbath holy because it is not the 7th day and someone is is not keeping the Sabbath holy because they are rebelling against what God has commanded."Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postmost of those are not laws at all, and we are talking about obeying the Mosaic Law and you are listing NT advice (not laws)?
it contains stuff like:
Five Things to Consider:
The ravens (LUKE 12:24)
The lilies (LUKE 12:27-28)
Truth (2 TIMOTHY 2:7)
That you are capable of falling (GALATIANS 6:1)
Christ (HEBREWS 3:1; HEBREWS 12:3)
Three Things to Continue in:
Love (JOHN 15:9)
Prayer (ROMANS 12:12; COLOSSIANS 4:2)
Truth (2 TIMOTHY 3:14)
---
You quote Romans 3:31 out of context but ignore the previous verses:
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i]
The spirit of the law. Not the letter of the law.You are basically denying Christ's sacrifice for you by trying to fulfill the law yourself. And you will fail."Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostThat list is an impressive exercise in missing the forest for the trees. Jesus himself distilled the Law into 2 commandments; you're making the mistake of equating examples with commands. Love God, love neighbor; all else is how to do so."Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI really didn't think I needed sarcasm tags."Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYour walls of text make it hard to answer you so I will just pick that parts that I feel like are most important and apologize if I miss anything.
1. Peter couldn't kill and eat anything, it was a vision
2. The purpose of the vision was an analogy. God was saying that just like the animals in the vision, both clean and unclean are now all clean, so both the Jew and the Gentile belong to God and are "clean"
3. If the animals were not combined all into one category of "clean" then neither are Jews and Gentiles. You can't have it both ways.
4. The rest of your argument above is just poor rationalization on your pat. Like someone else said, you are making much to big of a deal out of the word "common" and ignoring that God said he "cleansed" what Peter was refusing to eat, which means whatever Peter was referring to was "unclean"
1. Yes the bible does say we can't keep the law. Read Romans and Hebrews. All have fallen short of the Glory of God and all of our good deeds are as rags, etc. This is why Jesus was sent, because nobody could keep the Law except him. 2. Jesus didn't abolish the law, he kept the law so that we could receive HIS righteousness because we can't keep it.
3. And again, you are adding to the Law and adding in stuff that was purely for the Old Covenant between God and the Israelites which they broke over and over. You don't have that covenant with God, You have a new covenant with him through Jesus. A different contract. And it doesn't include dietary restrictions except abstaining from blood and food sacrificed to idols (which Paul even said was not a restriction if it didn't bother you)
You are being overly legalistic.
While we are under a New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, we are nevertheless still under the same God with the same nature and therefore the same instructions for how to walk in His same ways and express His same character traits. For example, God's righteousness is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with His righteousness are eternally valid regardless of which covenant we are under, if any. However, as part of the New Covenant, we are told that those who do not follow those instructions are not children of God (1 John 3:10).
Things that are matters of opinion are optional, but the commands of God are not, so Paul should not be interpreted as saying it is ok to rebel against God's commands if doesn't both you.
It is not being legalistic to think that followers of God should follow God.
So you just ignore what Paul actually said and substitute what you want him to have said? That my friend, is eisogesis. Reading into the text what is not there. He was talking about people LIKE YOU who would hold captive those who belong to Christ with false humility, telling us keep the parts of the Mosaic Law that we are not even subject to. Paul was condemning people like YOU, Soyeoung. You should take that to heart and repend."Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostNo, he's a Messianic Jew.
Ok, the kind that recognizes Jesus as "I AM," or the kind that's actually an infidel and doesn't know it?Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.
Beige Federalist.
Nationalist Christian.
"Everybody is somebody's heretic."
Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.
Proud member of the this space left blank community.
Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.
Justice for Ashli Babbitt!
Justice for Matthew Perna!
Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Christianbookworm View PostWhere did the Judaizer go?"Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment