That is not true, that is overgeneralizing. You can say it "infers" it, but that is up for debate; yet it does not SPEAK of it as it does unleavened bread.
You are using MOLD as a substitute for YEAST on other foods? Sorry, but that is another species of fungus, and not what the Bible ever calls "Leaven". Grapes will ferment, but are not then necesarily "bad". They will also later mold, and that is when they are bad! Two separate types of fungus, no other relationship. Mushroom is yet another fungus, associated with decay (like growing on old tree stumps, etc) but they themselves are food.
I have not made a "doctrine" out of it. Your side has made a doctrine out of leaven ALWAYS representing "corruption" meaning fermented beverages are always completely off limits. Yet this one parable disproves that generalization. If it is so universally bad, then why was it used in the parable as part of something good? (i.e. the bread should have grown using something else)
Nobody's saying a broom was bad. If they were, then we could use this as an example of it having a good use
But that one example disproves this generalization. Since "leaven" is symbolic there, it would fall under the same principle as the parables. You are the one building a doctrine off of symbolism. Remember, the yeast is DEAD in completely fermented wine anyway.
Yeast/Leaven: Ever good?
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Eric B, Aug 18, 2006.
Page 1 of 8
-
You say: "This one example disproves this generalization."
No, it shows that you cannot teach doctrine out of a parable. Parables illustrate truth already taught in the Bible. You are not doing that. You are coming up with a new and contradictory doctrine not taught in the Bible. And you are doing so through the use of a parable. That is bad hermeneutics and it is not rightly dividing the word of truth. You cannot teach doctrine out of parables. Parables serve only to illustrate existing truth. They cannot teach new truth. You do err in doing this.
DHK -
Proverbs 23:31-32 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.
--Solomon was a wise man--the wisest. I think he knew what he was talking about. It is not a book of science but it describes a scientific process--the process of fermentation.
Yes, there are many kinds of molds. They are all basically the same thing, in the same basic category. They all are forms of leaven or yeast. They are all forbidden in unleavened bread and juice, especially when celebrating the Lord's Table.
DHK -
Gerhard Ebersoehn Active MemberSite Supporter
DHK says leaven is used in the Bible throughout consistently representing sin. It is dangerous generalisation, and I'm surprised by DHK's use of it.
In the parable leaven MEANS good - no one can come by the fact. Bob Ryan, I appreciate your stand for simple correctness here!
Even in 1Cor5 'dzumos' represents BOTH the bad AND the good. Bad leaven is said to be "old". "You are UNLEAVENED", says Paul of THIS - bad - leaven; and now are made a "new lump" of bread 'leavened' of course - or it won't be "new bread"-'neon phurama'. Then in 8a Paul recommends us to "feast not with the leaven of malice and wickedness but with in the unfermentedness (by the old and bad leaven) of sincererity and truth".
The implication of 'fermentedness' by the leaven of Christ and the Holy Spirit is undeniable.
The term 'dzumos'/'adzumos' by itself is a parable - a metaphor - of a spiritual or invisible and inner agitation - whether by a bad or by a good agent. -
That is the mark of a cult.
DHK -
Gerhard Ebersoehn Active MemberSite Supporter
'Phyrama' - "that which is mixed" - with leaven naturally! Such are the reborn (Christians). Question is, with what, "mixed"? Dough for bread is mixed with leaven - and leaven in this case therefore is 'good'. Another 'exception' that makes BobRyan's 'exception' no longer the only.
-
Gerhard Ebersoehn Active MemberSite Supporter
So the Reformed Church sorts under 'cult'!?
-
Gerhard Ebersoehn Active MemberSite Supporter
Christian language - the expression of Faith - is an a priori impossibility without metaphor - or parable. So one could go further and insist Christiandom is cultish for using for doctrine, parable upon parable.
-
Gerhard Ebersoehn Active MemberSite Supporter
In fact DHK, your conclusion does not befit you, for it makes of you legalist in the worst sense - that of linguistic literalness.
-
DHK -
Gerhard Ebersoehn Active MemberSite Supporter
-
Gerhard Ebersoehn Active MemberSite Supporter
You know DHK, I used to be of your opinion much earlier in life as far as this question is concerned. S-i-m-p-l-e Bible-understanding has made me change my o so strong own convictions --- no cult
-
yah you can. well. you can introduce again an old doctrine left behind for ages.
that of true and false conversion. (parable of the soils) -
So it stands that the symbolism is not consistent, as it has symbolized both negative and positive things.
-
DHK is stepping outside the bounds of a moderator.
Moderators are to Moderate. They are not to Debate.
The function of a moderator is to insure that a post stays on topic.
DHK if you want to Debate please create a name to debate with and leave the DHK name to moderating.
Thank you. -
DHK -
DHK -
When Jesus specifically said: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees what was he talking about.
When Paul said Purge out the old leaven what was speaking about.
When Moses said Thou shalt not use leavened bread in the Passover, what was he talking about?
Why were they not permitted to use leaven?
DHK -
Once again, if you're going to actually condemn all leaven like that, then regular soft bread is then forbidden! -
As to the title of the thread, the question is asked, "Is yeast/leaven ever good?""
Answer: Yep! It "raises the dough!"
:rolleyes: :laugh: :laugh:
Ed
Page 1 of 8