Dietary laws

Otherwise, I would not be able to accept Christ......for I am a gentile.

 

For this topic seems the key word here is WHAT. Why does He not say WHO, but WHAT, including all things HE has cleaned.

 

I have shown where beef, chicken, eggs, milk, fruits and vegetables, and drinking water are contaminated( lots of stuff on the internet about it, look for yourself), they are or contain stuff bad for your body. Since it was stated this had nothing to do with scripture but pork being contaminated and bad for you, I challenge what about the other contaminated foods you eat? I ahev asked 3 times now and have it still has not been addressed.

 

They are bad because of what man has done......not because of the way they are made. And I have not seen your question before.


What had God cleansed? The Gentiles.

 

Since Audra missed this on the previous page.....

 

Here again since Audra missed this although she posted next right after it is the information she seems to not have.

 

Some of the things you have said on this page of posts make no sense with what you posted before. Either it is a spiritual, biblical issue or it isn't. You seems ot be flip flopping, now you are stating it is a spiritual, biblical issue(on this page).
Where as if it is a health issue I ahve shown and have challenaged you to do some reading to see that all the food you buy in your local grocery store is in one way or another contaminated. And it makes no difference where it comes from if as your original argument is true that it only has to do with how it effevcts the body, and as you stated there is no proof yet, but there is for beef and other foods, including your drinking water. So if it is just a health issue and what pork may or may not do to your body, then what about what the other contaminates can do to your body.

God created something bad?


Pastor Larry gives the best arfument so far IMO
Pastor Larry

 

http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/gospel_way/old_law_today_1.php

 

You have it right. Acts 10 has nothing to do with food. God has never cleaned a unclean animal. Pigs are still unclean. People pick and choose what they want to believe or not believe. I've seen verses out of Acts, Ro.14, which never has to do with the subject at hand. I've seen quotes from 1Cor.10, which is taken completely out of context. Peter, 25 years after his dream, still distiguishes between clean and unclean animals(2Pet.2:22). In 1Tim.4:4; it says:"For every creature "OF GOD" is good, and nothing is to be refused, if it be recieved with thanksgiving: For it is santified by the Word of God... (ok, where in the word of God does he separate food)Lev.11. Remember, This whole sin business started because Adam ate something he was not supposed to. By the way, the only laws that were nailed to the cross, were ritual cerimonial laws, not moral, civil or sanitation laws. In 1 Peter 1:15,16:"But as he which hath called you holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, be ye holy; for I am holy". Ok, God says, in all manner of life, be holy because it is written. Where do you think it is written, Lev.11. Right in the middle of the food laws. God did not intend for us to eat scavanger, predator, or creepy things. What was an abomination in the Old Testament is most definately an abomination in the New Testament. I truly believe even if the people knew the truth, they wouldn't change their diet anyway.

 

Suit yourself, but it seems quite clear that Acts 10 is about meats.

One needs to be careful that in order to win an argument or debate we not contradict the Word of God itself (yes I include myself in that statement).

Acts 10:
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

So do you advocate that the Lord here is speaking about cannibalism?

HankD

 

This most certainly is a Bible verse using unclean foods changed to clean foods to illustrate the need for Gentiles to hear the gospel! God is not a liar and when he spoke of meat being 'clean', he mean what he said.

Diane

 

I really must jump in here in regards to Peter's vision.

It was not to declare unclean beasts as clean.

Ask yourself these questions: Why was it done "three times?" What's the signifigance in that? Read on and to see what the Bible says and you will have the answer. Who were that men that visited Peter? How many were there? How did Peter explain the vision to his brethren? What did it reveal to him and he to the others?

 

Christ declared all foods clean.

Secondly, someone said that Christ only nailed some laws to the cross,not all of them. This is yet again an unbiblical statement. In Christ, the Law is done away. Paul clearly said in Gal 5 that if you keep a part of it, you must keep all of it. Therefore, if you insist on only eating certain meats, you must also insist on every other part of the Law. It is not divisible.

Thirdly, the Acts 10 passage is a direct refutation of Peter's view. Even in Acts 15, with the things passed on to the Gentiles, the only thing with reference to meat is meat with the blood in it.

Fourthly, there is still no indication of the reason God gave the clean / unclean distinction. Any attempt to make a reason up is simply that ... making it up. When the Scripture does not speak, we should be very careful.

 

As far as I see it is a total misunderstaning of grace. Jesus didn't die to fulfill parts of the law.

 

We need to differentiate between ceremonial law and the moral law, in other words between (for instance) offering the blood of animals on the altar vs. observing the Ten Commandments.

 

Why? Scripture makes no such distinction. Paul and James both talk about the Law being indivisible. There is no scriptural basis for dividing it. The Law is the the Law.

 

But nobody has ever beensaved by keeping the moral law. OT saints were saved through faith looking rforward to Christ, through the blood sacrifice of animals.

Christ was the final sacrifice for sin, doing away with the need for the blood sacrifice, and all the Leviticval (etc.) laws associated with it. But He clearly endorsed the moral law. It is that through which we are found guilty and in need of salvation through Christ.

 

BTW I am not taking the side of dietary laws here. Just commenting on some of the resultant discussion.

 

Secondly, someone said that Christ only nailed some laws to the cross,not all of them. This is yet again an unbiblical statement. In Christ, the Law is done away. Paul clearly said in Gal 5 that if you keep a part of it, you must keep all of it. Therefore, if you insist on only eating certain meats, you must also insist on every other part of the Law. It is not divisible.</font>[/QUOTE]Christ has not declared all food clean. Your understanding of the Word of God is [snipped]. It is clear [snipped]. Christ takes away the penalty of the law to those who are under the blood, but He does not take away the law itself(Matt.5:18). Thou shalt not commit ery, , bear false witness still stands for the Christian today. Your judgement is based on how you kept the law(Phil.3:9). You quoted Mk. 7:15 and try to say all meats are clean. The passage is not about food. Again, your [snipped]. Mk. 7 is about the heart(cp.Mk.7:21). The whole passage is not about what they ate, but rather how they were eating it(Mk.7:2). The only food mentioned is bread. You then go to Gal. ch. 5, which is about salvation through cerimonial rituals(circumcision). Acts 15 and Gal. is about the church being corrupted by false teachings on salvation. That is not what we are talking about here. I guess what gets me the most is [snipped]. It makes me wonder [snipped].

[ April 22, 2004, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

 

I think personal attacks are uncalled for.