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
See more
See less

Are Christians Permitted to Eat Unclean Animals?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Darfius View Post
    So you read "do not think I have come to abolish the law" as "I have come to abolish the law"? And you ask me where my bias came from? The phrase "Jewish universe" does not appear in scripture. And I have no respect whatsoever for those who call the Lord Jesus, maker of heaven and earth, a lie-telling, rhetorical, flamboyant, ignorant backwoods rabbi. He meant every word He said.
    I would not want you to respect man. I do wish that you would understand what Paul has shown in the deployment of the message and doctrine of the resurrected Jesus. I do wish that you understood why Jewish laws didn't ever become a written law over Gentiles. This point about is in Rom 3:19-20. Do you follow Chinese laws and go to jail for not doing them?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
      I would not want you to respect man. I do wish that you would understand what Paul has shown in the deployment of the message and doctrine of the resurrected Jesus. I do wish that you understood why Jewish laws didn't ever become a written law over Gentiles. This point about is in Rom 3:19-20. Do you follow Chinese laws and go to jail for not doing them?
      The phrase "Jewish laws" doesn't appear in scripture either. I sure wish you'd stop presenting your sunday school lessons as deep theology.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Darfius View Post
        The phrase "Jewish laws" doesn't appear in scripture either. I sure wish you'd stop presenting your sunday school lessons as deep theology.
        I missed your explanation of why those words in Matt 5:17 were important. Jesus anticipated that the people would say that Jesus abolished the law. Why would they think he did that??

        Comment


        • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
          I missed your explanation of why those words in Matt 5:17 were important. Jesus anticipated that the people would say that Jesus abolished the law. Why would they think he did that??
          Because in teaching a deeper, Spirit-filled keeping of the law, it sometimes sounded as if He and His apostles were teaching an abandonment of the law. Now it was not enough merely to abstain from murder: to hate your brother was murder. Now it was not enough to abstain from adultery: to lust after a woman was adultery. But to teach that mere ritualistic keeping of the law was not enough was not to teach abandonment of the law.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Darfius View Post
            Because in teaching a deeper, Spirit-filled keeping of the law, it sometimes sounded as if He and His apostles were teaching an abandonment of the law. Now it was not enough merely to abstain from murder: to hate your brother was murder. Now it was not enough to abstain from adultery: to lust after a woman was adultery. But to teach that mere ritualistic keeping of the law was not enough was not to teach abandonment of the law.
            How would your interpretation make them think he was abandoning the law rather than showing them that an obligation to the law was harder than they imagined?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Darfius View Post
              Because in teaching a deeper, Spirit-filled keeping of the law, it sometimes sounded as if He and His apostles were teaching an abandonment of the law. Now it was not enough merely to abstain from murder: to hate your brother was murder. Now it was not enough to abstain from adultery: to lust after a woman was adultery. But to teach that mere ritualistic keeping of the law was not enough was not to teach abandonment of the law.
              Gentiles never belonged to the old covenant. The only "laws" that apply to us are the moral laws which apply to all mankind and which Jesus said can be summarized by Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself.

              Not the dietary ones, or the ceremonial ones. Those were just for the Israelites/Hebrews/Jews.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                How would your interpretation make them think he was abandoning the law rather than showing them that an obligation to the law was harder than they imagined?
                One way would be when He and His disciples walked through the field picking grains to eat on the Sabbath. Legalistically speaking, they broke the law. But they served the Spirit behind the law. They were keeping the Sabbath holier than inaction would have kept it.

                Alternatively, people could abuse that notion by saying following the written law was not necessary at all anymore because they "served the Spirit behind the law 'in Christ.'"

                In essence, Christ was cutting the "spiritualizers" and "just-for-the-Jew'ers" off at the pass.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Gentiles never belonged to the old covenant. The only "laws" that apply to us are the moral laws which apply to all mankind and which Jesus said can be summarized by Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself.

                  Not the dietary ones, or the ceremonial ones. Those were just for the Israelites/Hebrews/Jews.
                  Gentiles could always choose to belong to the old covenant. When you show me the scripture that says the written law was "only for the Jews", I'll believe you. Until then, I'll believe you're shirking your responsibilities and teaching others to do the same.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Darfius View Post
                    Gentiles could always choose to belong to the old covenant. When you show me the scripture that says the written law was "only for the Jews", I'll believe you. Until then, I'll believe you're shirking your responsibilities and teaching others to do the same.
                    Why would Christians choose to belong to the old covenant?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Why would Christians choose to belong to the old covenant?
                      My saying Gentiles could always choose to belong to the old covenant was in response to your false claim that "Gentiles never belonged to the old covenant." Christians have a new covenant which includes following the written law with the help of the Spirit.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Darfius View Post
                        Gentiles could always choose to belong to the old covenant. When you show me the scripture that says the written law was "only for the Jews", I'll believe you. Until then, I'll believe you're shirking your responsibilities and teaching others to do the same.
                        I showed you that the Jewish laws were only for the Jews -- see Rom 3:19-20. Did Moses ask Egyptians to agree to the covenant?

                        You are applying 'Gentile' in Sparko's question to pre-Christ when he would mean Gentiles as Christians.

                        How do you envision this obligation to old covenant laws? What do you do daily to keep these laws? Which laws do you keep?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Darfius View Post
                          One way would be when He and His disciples walked through the field picking grains to eat on the Sabbath. Legalistically speaking, they broke the law. But they served the Spirit behind the law. They were keeping the Sabbath holier than inaction would have kept it.

                          Alternatively, people could abuse that notion by saying following the written law was not necessary at all anymore because they "served the Spirit behind the law 'in Christ.'"

                          In essence, Christ was cutting the "spiritualizers" and "just-for-the-Jew'ers" off at the pass.
                          Your argument is not convincing. But you are partly accurate about the problems created when people are subject to such laws.

                          What's the point of applying the law if they are just breaking it? how do you know when they are okay when breaking the law?
                          Last edited by mikewhitney; 07-23-2019, 02:22 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Darfius View Post
                            My saying Gentiles could always choose to belong to the old covenant was in response to your false claim that "Gentiles never belonged to the old covenant." Christians have a new covenant which includes following the written law with the help of the Spirit.
                            They didn't. Sure they could convert but that is speaking of individuals, I was speaking of nations. The gentile nations did not belong to the old covenant.

                            The new covenant relies on Jesus' fullfilment of the law and his taking the punishment we deserve and our receiving his righteousness, not our keeping the law (which we can't do) -- you might want to read Romans and Hebrews again.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                              I showed you that the Jewish laws were only for the Jews -- see Rom 3:19-20. Did Moses ask Egyptians to agree to the covenant?
                              The text does not say the law was only for the Jews. That is your eisegesis. It says that only the Jews understood the condemnation that came via the law. In fact, Paul says there "is an advantage to being a Jew", because:

                              Scripture Verse: Romans 3

                              What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              Words which you seek to nullify. And by the way, many Egyptians joined the Mosaic covenant:

                              Scripture Verse: Exodus 12

                              37 The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Sukkoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. 38 Many other people went up with them, and also large droves of livestock, both flocks and herds.

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              How do you envision this obligation to old covenant laws? What do you do daily to keep these laws? Which laws do you keep?
                              There's no need for me to "envision" anything. It's in writing. I do not eat pork, for example, or indeed any unclean animal.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                                Your argument is not convincing. But you are partly accurate about the problems created when people are subject to such laws.

                                What's the point of applying the law if they are just breaking it? how do you know when they are okay when breaking the law?
                                Could you please make your questions intelligible? What do you mean "applying the law" and who is "they?"

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X