What about that ham sandwich ?

A future global scope – global catastrophe

The sword of God is on “all flesh” in this future judgment. He is to execute judgment by fire and He does not approve of eating mice and detestable things. (Some of this is even agreed to by some Christians today)

In the above verses we see the return from the Diaspora predicted. And we see the Reality in Ezra chapter 1. But an even bigger reality at the 2nd coming.

As for priests – there is no mention of sacrifices. The priests were teachers as well as those who administered the sacrifices. The prediction above in that future time – (if not applied to Ezra and to the days before Christ) may reference Priests as teachers.

However the next part definitely goes beyond the first coming of Christ – and even the 2nd coming.

Here then is the scope of the Sabbath given “ALL Mankind” – as perfectly intended by God after all His enemies are destroyed. All mankind is to come and worship before Him “From Sabbath to Sabbath” – Certainly this is true starting with the Millenium but continues to be true “n the NEW EARTH” and John tells us when this is in Rev 21.

But then – at the time of the New Earth we will see the following regarding the rest of “mankind” – the wicked.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So this passage jumps back and forth between the past (Diaspora) and the future? Or it's dual? Bet! (in the preterist-futurist debate for example, both sides need to realize there is duality in the prophecies). Still, even if it is dual, then not everything will necessarily apply to the antitypical fulfillment. Some of the language ther we see is typical only. God already tells us in the passage what He spiritually regards as swine's and dog's flesh/blood.

 

As has already been stated - IF the law of edible foods was intended to reflect the fact that there is "no one who is clean for ALL have sinned and fallen short" then the law would be simple - all animal flesh would be "unclean".

You can not bend the text as you need it without also editing it to be consistent. And since you can't edit it - we are left with the facts clear and obvious.

In Gen 6 and 7 LOOOONG before there is Jew or Abraham or Israel or Sinai - we have the distinction between clean and unclean animals PRE FLOOD!

In Lev 11 God the Creator - of all flesh TELLS us which flesh is edible and explicitly excludes the cats, dogs, rats and bats among other things.

This seems to be such a cross to bear for some - but it is actually very simple.

The idea that this exclusion by our Creator of dogs, cats, rats and bats had NO health benefit -- is a strained logic that can not hold up.

The idea that God ONLY said that ALL flesh was unclean (to emphasize the fact that ALL need a savior and need forgiveness and are unclean in sin) can not be supported at aLL in scripture.

Basically - no alternative to the clear meaning of the text has been offerred so far.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Claudia,

You said this....

Does your church teach that salvation is through faith alone in Jesus Christ?

We know that hundreds of thousands of believers in Christ are eating swines flesh every day. Are you stating that these Christians will be destroyed regardless of their faith in Jesus Christ because they are found eating a plate of bacon at His coming?

God Bless!

 

God says not to eat the cat dog rat or bat. The question above gets to the point of all those around the world that consider bats and rats to be delicacies and argues that since so many love the rat - to accept God's Word on this point - would be to deny grace.

Surely God did not "mean it" when he said the dog, cat, rat and bat were "not edible" - right?

Because if he dares to remove them from the dinner table, to elimate them from the list of sandwiches on our menu - then grace itself must perish! Indeed salvation for mankind can not longer be by grace - if God dares to say that rats are not food!!

How far off the sola-scriptura, gospel bandwagon does one have to fall to make sure absurd arguments linking grace with rats!???

I just don't get what would drive someone to make such an argument.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In Lev 11 God the Creator - of all flesh TELLS us which flesh is edible and explicitly excludes the cats, dogs, rats and bats among other things.

This seems to be such a cross to bear for some - but it is actually very simple.

The idea that this exclusion by our Creator of dogs, cats, rats and bats had NO health benefit -- is a strained logic that can not hold up.

Indeed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hi Bob,

Can you answer my question? Please just keep it to the point without any rants

Will believers in Jesus Christ be destroyed for eating swines flesh when He returns?

God Bless!

 

You want to talk about pigs.

I want to talk about the rats cats dogs and bats.

What is your point? Are you saying that the case for Lev 11 can not be made by looking at the "details" regarding the rats, cats, dogs and bats?

Are you saying that the problems really don't come up until we get to the pig?

Fine - then lets make it "easy" - tell me the "truth" presented in Lev 11 (and Isaiah 66) regarding the rats that they both address.

Will you concede that this exclusion from "edible food" was made on a good, pure and noble basis by Christ our Creator?

Will you admit that it is not healthy to eat the rat sandwich?

Can you not admit that because of the large number of clean animals - that Lev 11 can NOT be used to "represent" The fact that there is NNE that is clean??

This would "appear" to be the easy part. And it uses the easy case of rats, cats dogs and bats that we can all agree on.

If it is going to be too difficult for you to answer - how much more difficult will it be for you to address questions about pigs?

God says that idol worship is wrong - yet many millions of Christians use them in worship. Are you going to throw grace out the window to keep that command about idols -- or are you going to say that either you can have grace or you can have God's word on using images in worship services? Is this how you "exegete" the text?

These are simple direct questions.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I'll try this again,

Will believers in Jesus Christ be destroyed for eating swines flesh when He returns? (remember that I asked this because Claudia brought it up)

God Bless!

 

That's not what anyone has said (at least that I know of). What I've said is that the behavior of the types of animals that were labeled unclean typified the type of people and behavior God's people were to avoid. Think about the characteristics associated with pigs and other scavengers; beasts and birds of prey; etc.; and then the characteristics of the "clean" animals (grazing mammals; peacful birds; even the clean insects such as praying mantises have mostly good connotations).
Of course, no man exhibits the good characteristics all the time and it is for this reason that we all fall short and are not clean. This has nothing to do with all animals bein unclean. Not all represented unclean characteristics.
And once again, "edible" is something you are reading into the tex, and thus basing your arguments on. There is still no evidence that people who eat pork and shellfish are all less healthy than the kosher.

 

I guess you need Claudia to answer that - but if you are asking whether I believe the text of Isaiah 66 on eating rats and being destroyed by God for it - the answer is yes!

If you are asking whether I think God was serious about His own statement on eating dogs, cats, bats and rats in Lev 11 -- the answer is YES!

If you are asking whether I think He is STILL serious about that AND about not worshiping idols - or with idols in church - I say clearly YES.

If you say YES but a lot of Christians use idols in worship - and ask whether this changes my view on what God's Word says -- then my answer is "no".

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is precisely where your view fails. Since ALL have sinned and ALL fall short and ALL need a Savior then ALL are unclean and the ONLY way to illustrate that with FLESH food is to say ALL is unclean.

Clearly that is NOT the point being made in Lev 11 or in Isaiah 66.

I gave you the quote - and you did not respond - did you delete those texts from your Bible?

If not - then it is unclear as to how your simply repeating your assertion makes it become true.

Notice "again" how the term "edible" IS in the text.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That is actually a different subject entirely. It is of the form "yes well when Christ the Creator tells us which flesh is edible and good for food were we then able to fully comprehend all that was in the mind of God as he warned us away from cat, rat, dog, bat, pig and shellfish"?

I never claimed that our ability to fully fathom all that is in God's mind - is EVER the basis for obedience.

(I want to be clear on that point).

Having said that - for the pig you have the ancient AND modern day problem of trichanosis (Trichinella spiralis) contracted from pigs and bears is STILL the cause of death in humans today.

Shell fish are largely filter feeders and have been known to contain 100 times the concentration of impurities that the water around them contains.

It is not clear that these are at all "healthy" for you. But as I said above - the degree to which we understand all the health hazards of the cats, rats, dogs and bats was never the basis for obedience.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, why do people do this? Rather than answer a person's question, they present their own, something they feel comfortable answering, and then answer their own question instead of the original question.

Does your answer to your question then answer mine?

I would like Claudia to answer, since it was her post which prompted my question in the first place, but since you responded, I would like a "yes" or "no" to my own question from you as well ( without a rewording of it please).

God Bless you brother!

ps. simple question, just need a simple answer, then after the "yes" or "no" please feel free to elaborate if you like.

 

That's his main tactic. Either that, or rework your question into his own straw man, and even rework the text sometimes. You should see if you can find the debate we had over Gal.4 last spring.

The fact that all men sin does not change the fact that unclean animals represent unclean behavoir and clean animals represent clean behavior. How does the fact that man fails and often acts more like pigs and dogs than sheep now make the sheep unclean? (This is why I bolded "behavior", above. The animals represent behavior or traits, the do not represent man himself) No, the animals are set in their God-given traits; it's man who falls short.

A parent tells his child not to eat something. Perhaps he has had too much sweets, or it is something that makes him sick. A doctor tells hs patient to avoid certain foods for awhile; because it might clash with some medication he is prescribing, or might upset his stomach while he is suffering whatever illness he may have. That does not mean it is not "edible"; only there is a particular reason he should not eat it. I know you're thinking "See, just like the unclean meats are not good", but I am using an example regarding this word "edible" you keep throwing into the texts. The command "do no eat something" does not equal "it is not edible".

And as I have said before, beef and chicken have now becaome even less healthy for you, and even more dangerous when not cooked properly. (poultry has salmonella, and I forgot what beef has). There were clean fish we were eating once (I think bluefish) where you had to avoid an area around the upper fins, because it absorbed all of the impurities in the water. It was still "clean" according to Lev.11. All of this proves that LEv.11 was not about "health" or "edibility".

This is the old standby, when the health argument runs out, of "well you can't tell how it is not healthy, but just believe God when it says that it is". But you're the one who tries to prove the laws of Lev.11 based on "health", not God. You read that into the text, and then tried to build an argument to support it. When that fails, then you use the argument you were tying to prove to prove itself. That is circular.
God gives us the spiritual meaning of "unclean" in 2 Cor.6:17 and 1Pet.1:15. Psuedo-Barnabas also spelled it out; but of course, he was not inspired.

 

Your question has to do with something Claudia said and has nothing to do with a quote from me. Your efforts to get me to answer for Claudia are simply misdirection. I have kept my points simple, obvious and direct.

You seem to be avoiding a response to my questions and instead insist on asking me questions that are your own responses to Claudia's post.

Certainly your approach here is "instructive".

Certainly that is understandable - in the mean time - the obvious points that I have been raising and the questions I have been asking "remain" -- obviously.

I have simply contributed to the foundation of your own question by pointing out the problem with idol worship and "observing" the obvious point that the "number of people violating the rule does not obliterate the rule". (Something I am sure we both agree with).

In Christ,

Bob

 

Finally - a response to a direct question.

There is no disagreement with your statement above EXCEPT that if the intent is to show that ALL have sinned and so ALL are unclean and ALL need a savior - THEN the rule would HAVE to be "ALL FLESH IS UNCLEAN".

However in your attempt to salvage the spin some put on this - you seek to have the rule show " a different reality" which is that the SAVED are clean and the UNSAVED are unclean.

Notice your OWN words

Assuming you agree that the clean behavior of the saints is due only to the fact of the new birth and the new creation - THEN we can certainly "pretend" that instead of just sticking with the obvious statements IN the text of Lev 11 -- God ALSO wanted a HIDDEN meaning to be present - which is that the fruit of the saints will be CLEAN behavior and the fruit of the Wicked is UNCLENA behavior.

No problem with adding that littel extra-biblical insertion as something to "also think about" while reading the Lev 11 text that SAYS that this is the rule for food that is EDIBLE - that SAYS that animals like cats, dogs, rats and bats are not edible.!!

However your "failure" in this case results when we observe that the rule you are NOW clinging to - is STILL true in the NT.

You have simply reduced your view to a "true-ism" about the effects of salvation and the good fruit of the NEW Creation that remains "fact" in both OT and NT.

True enough the sinful nature falls short - but the new Creation - the Matt 7 fruit is that which is pleasing to God so Chriat says "NOT everyone who SAYS Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven -- but he who DOES the will of My Father". Christ approves of obedience and condemns rebellion. Christ predicts the fruit of the Spirit will be the result of salvation.

Certainly true Matt 7 PRE cross - and certainly true Gal 5 POST cross.

Get it?

Your "solution" does not wipe out the text of scripture that you need to obliterate.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Indeed in this case it is cats, rats, bats and dogs that we are not to eat. Trying to get the Lev 11 text NOT to address these animals that are obviously included IN the text is an impossible task!

And in this case it is not simply a parent or doctor - but God the CREATOR of ALL FLESH telling us (in His own words) what is EDIBLE.

Notice it even includes instructions about touching dead carcasses - as "a problem".

How anyone can twist this around to -- "but the cats, rats and bats and dead carcasses were no longer a food issue after the cross the way Lev 11 instructs us" is beyond me!!

However I am certain there is some "story" that one might tell to feel better about doing such a thing.

I see your having a problem with the text above - oft quoted - repeatedly submitted in this discussion -- - and never addressed.


Here it is "again" from the quote above...

Fascinating!!

Your 'need' to change the text is apparent.

In the mean time - what do you do about the fact that simply "needing" to do it - doesn't change it?

I am interested to know how you get around that little "inconvenient" detail.

Oh now I get it! You mean that little word "Edible" needs to be IN the text and not just something I add when I add vs 47 of chapter 11 --- to chapter 11. I guess I need to stop inserting my writing in the Chapter 11 as in ...

I think I see your point now. If we pretend that vs 47 is MY writing and not scripture THEN maybe we can make ourselves believe that God did NOT intend to speak of that which is EDIBLE and that which is not.

How cleaver!

I am continually amazed at the lengths that these undo-the-text efforts will go to.

In the mean time - the cats, rats, dogs and bats of Lev 11 are STILL unclean and STILL said not to be "edible" By God Himself!! How sad for your POV - eh?

In Christ,

Bob

 

As noted before - our ability to "Be God" or to know all the science that the Creator knows -- is never the "basis" for obedience.

So "knowing" why cats, rats, dogs and bats are said by God NOT to be edible is not the reason for obeying Christ the Creator!

Get it?

This shows a possible reason that God may have "included" in HIS decision to include pigs in the list of cats, dogs, bats and rats as not "edible" -- but He never actually mentions the filtering problem or the worm in the pig.

"less than what"?? "Less" than the rat? or "Less" than the pig? Is this your evaluation of all that God was thinking on this point so you can safely change His Word now that you have "re-calibrated"??

What kind of argument are you making? Are you aware of the number of deaths each year from trichanosis? Have you plugged into the CDC on that one? Or is this coming from the mind of the infinite?

OR are you saying we should ALSO consider the clean animals to be unclean due to disease problems of the 20th and 21st century?

(I might actually go along with that 2nd view).

WHAT !! The fact that you can't eat blue fish fins with impunity PROVES that God was NOT talking about health when HE addresses the rat, cat, dog and bat - and HE says they are not EDIBLE!

Bluefish Fins!!!????

Are you claiming that the fins have 100 to 1000 times more impurities than the concentration of impurities in the water around the fish???? (Are you simply making stuff up and then calling it "proof"?? Wait! Don't tell me -- let me guess.)

Errr - um I never claimed that rats, cats, dogs, pigs, bears are "healthy" to eat.

And your "bluefish fin" story does not make them healthy. (This is coming as a big surprise to you I bet).

Also the idea that there are WAYS to get sick eating clean animal flesh is NOT proof that clean animals are (in God's eyes) JUST as unhealthly as the rat, cat, dog, bear, pig and bat.

Your "proof-by-story" is not working as a valid form of exegesis OR of health.

Wrong.

I said at the opening that the worm of the pig and the filter problem of the shell fish is never mentioned in the text. I merely point out that these are facts - are true and may certainly be among those things NOT mentioned in the text that are causing these animals to be called "not edible" by Christ the Creator.

I never said that these are the only reasons - in fact I make a big deal about NOT claiming to "out-think God" so that we might have the "Story" for "recalibrating the text" of Lev 11 when it no longer fits our preferences.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Feel free to point out any quote of Lev 11 in 2Cor 6 or 1Peter 1. (Take the entire chapter and show it in there ANYWHERE).

Also feel free to point out actual references to cats, bats, dogs, rats, pigs or shellfish in those chapters.

Also feel free to show anywhere in those two chapters where the author says "this is the meaning of the food laws"

Or else - simply make up a story.

I leave the choice up to you.

In Christ,

Bob