Do pork-eaters go to hell?!

And with that my exegesis point shines brighter! Keep up the Isaiah pork post, it always helps my argument.

God Bless!

 

That does help. You choose to pick and choose the laws that are convenient for you to follow.

God Bless!

 

I suppose you are free to close your eyes and makup whatever you like no matter what I post. My answer was that in each case there is actually a Biblically sound response -- but your "It all is whatever I want it to be" gaming the topic is certainly understandable given your position so far.

The alternative to such a "I am not really serious about discussing this topic" answer as you have given - would be to respond substantively to each of the points raised in my post about the context and scope of the various kinds of law.

In Christ,

Bob

 

same for the commandment against taking God's name in vain.

It is for all humans. You can not sidestep this issue by saying that God's people were the Hebrews in the OT not the Philistines. God STILL was "UNCHANGING" and God still "SO LOVED THE WORLD" and God STILL had MORAL LAW for mankind defining sin.

Notice that Isaiah 66 does not condemn eating rats - just for Jews. In fact in Isaiah 66 regarding the Sabbath "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship".

God's Law regarding sin has always applied to MANKIND.

Paul makes the same point in Romans 3 showing that ALL MANKIND is held accountable and sinners by that same law.

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. That is man-made tradition not scripture.
#2. Peter continues to argue in the NT Acts 10 that he has NEVER eaten anything unclean and even refuses a direct command to do so as a test of faith and obedience. He then shows that the test was simply a method to direct him to evangelize gentiles - having nothing to do with a literal rat or cat sandwich.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Notice that in Acts 10 Peter never says "O No Lord for I have never shared the gospel with a Gentile" as if that was a point of faithtfulness that he was holding to as a Jew and now that God was asking for a change he was reluctant. Rather on the THE POINT of the vision Peter is "emphatic" accepting the truth of God.

But when it comes to eating rats - Peter affirms as an act of faith and obedience "O no Lord for I have NEVER eaten anything unclean". That means he never spun the teachings of Christ to mean "eat rats now".

That means he understood the symbolism of the vision about eating rats.

And when 3 times Peter relates this vision he never does so in a way that says "good news my jewish brothers - sewer rats are now a ready source of food for us Christians".

It never happens because it is simply not a Bible teaching!

in Christ,

Bob

 

1Cor 6:19-20 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Seems logical to take care of your body and by using God's law for direction would be wise.

 

Choosing to eat certain foods or not to eat them because you want to be healthy is a totally different subject than abstaining from certain foods because they are sinful. If you don't want to eat pork or shellfish that is your decision, but are you doing it for health reasons or because you're trying to follow the OT law? There are no food restrictions for NT Christians. Also, if you're trying to follow OT food laws, don't forget that certain bugs are allowable to eat. By your reasoning, they are listed as 'clean' because they are good for you. How many crickets, locusts, grasshoppers or katydids have you eaten lately?

 

Choosing to eat certain foods or not to eat them because you want to be healthy is a totally different subject than abstaining from certain foods because they are mentioned in God's Word as being wrong or where you find someone being burned in the 2nd death fire and brimstone for eating what God calls "detestible things".

I think we all agree that personnal preference is very different from open rebellion against the Word of God.

The real issue is -- are you going to read just the good bible or will you also read the so-called "Bad Bible" section of the 66 books of scripture?

How much are you really willing to blindly ignore?

In Luke 16 we have the parable of the rich man and Lazarus where the MAIN point is "If they refuse to listen to the Word of God given through Moses THEN they will not listen though someone rises from the dead".

So the question remains - SHOULD we simply color the O.T "Purple" and label it "The bad bible" or not?

If you are willing to toss out the 39 books of the OT THEN I have good news for you!! "There are no food restrictions" added in the NT!! And I have even better news for you -- "I think there is a good way to spin that into NO food restrictions allowed from God's Word the OT either".

Think about it - that might be just the thing for you... of course you have to find ways to cut-and-paste all the quotes of the OT that you find in the NT -- but eventually you will get there!

In Christ,

Bob

 

I agree. Just when Acts 15 seems to have established the rule of not eating food offerred to idols (something I don't think was ever forbidden in the O.T) Paul comes along in 1Cor 8 and 10 and argues that what is offerred to idols does not reall matter in the big picture since idols are really just rocks.

I think I see his point -- do you?

But in those chapters he ALSO shows us how the issue of vegetarianism was creeping in "I will never eat meat at all if it causes my brother to sin". He was arguing that some who thought it was sin to eat meat offerred to idols (just as the Act 15 council instructed) would be defiled in their conscience if they saw "informed" Jews ignoring that restriction because they know that this is really nothing. In fact that is the ONLY detail given in all of the NT for issues related to a vegetarian diet.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Enjoy your grasshoppers Bob. Yeah, that's in the 'good' part of the Bible.

 

Ok - well if that part of the Bible is still good... I guess I have to pay attention to it.

 

Roasted Grasshoppers are still an expensive dainty at certain luxurious restaurants

 

I think I'll pass. Around here, they're still bugs.

 

You go find the nearest Pharisee to bless it. :laugh:

 

You would have us believe that God tempts us to sin. God did not tempt Peter to sin, Jam 1:13, Therefore what is left to conclude is that God wanted Peter to LEARN a LESSON that food and men once declared unclean was no more! And as always with Peter, God had to show him (not tempt him with sin) three times before the message sunk in.

God Bless!