ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Annul Levitical Food Laws

Did Jesus annul the Levitical food laws (Lev.11) when He taught that whatever goes into ones stomach does not defile one but what comes out of the heart (Mt.15:17f, Mk.7:19f) or is the laws of the Lord forever immutable?

Join Our Christian Dating and Take The Ten Commandments Bible Quiz
 ---lee1538 on 4/6/12
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog



Lee, it is apparent the only way StrongAxe can respond is with evasion.

BTW your comments to StrongAxe also do not "reflect the forum thread."

I would say obsessed is too strong a word, however I am passionate about exposing antiBiblical views. History shows once active denominations have been reduced to liberal meaninglessness by reinterpreting God's word to conform with changing human 'scientific' opinion, as you and others here do.
---Warwick on 4/16/12


Mark, carefully read Genesis 1:3-5 and you will see God describes the components of a 24hr day. Does a 24hr day not have daylight and nighttime? Does it also not have evening and morning? Therefore it is proper to deduce this is a 24hr day. If anyone believes otherwise they are free to show what other time-period it describes. But no one has done so, and I am confident no one will. But they will still hold their antiBiblical views. Does this not reveal their thinking and condemn them? They are demonstrating they will not believe anything in God's word which contradicts their long-ages/evolutionary views.

That these are 24hr days is confirmed by Exodus 20:8-11 and 31:15-17.
---Warwick on 4/16/12


Warwick:

As I have repeated many times, what I happen to personally believe has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of my argument or yours. The ONLY thing that matters is what the Bible says. Not what I believe. Not what you believe. Just what the Bible says.

For this reason, I decline to answer your question since it has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion. Whether I believe the earth was created in 24 hours, or 4 billion years, or by the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a fit of indigestion, has no bearing whatsoever on what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

If you can't make a cogent objective argument for what happened without the truth of that argument relying on my personal beliefs, your position must not be a strong one.
---StrongAxe on 4/16/12


StrongAxe - I would not respond to Warwick if he continues to address an issue that does not reflect the forum thread.

He has an obsession with his view that the world was created in 24 hour periods, but there is nothing he can offer to support that view.
---lee1538 on 4/16/12


StrongAxe, your inability/unwillingness to even attempt an answer to a straight forward question shows you know it blows your position out of the water!

If you knew of any other period of time which was composed of daylight and nighttime, and evening and morning you would have given it immediately I posed the question. But you don't know of any such period of time so attempt to evade the question.

You really do know that Genesis 1:3-5 describes the components of nothing other than a 24hr day. A month, a year, a decade, a thousand years, or any period of time other than 24hrs does not have daylight and nighttime, and evening and a morning. You know this but will not accept it for the reasons I have given on numerous occasions.
---Warwick on 4/16/12




Warwick, Strongaxe is correct. That is the only reason I oppose your "exact dates or times" The only person I have heard mention something is exact is the "Sinless One", when he says the time and hour of Jesus birth. He even mentioned morning or evening once. Not everything is meant to be exact, only when stated as exact. Numbers are not perfect in many cases either. Unless something is explicitly stated it is not exact. Other then others coming out with a cult view as you mentioned, why is it so important for you to be exact? It must have a big purpose for you, or else you would not continue to argue the point? Does it have something to do with worshipping on Saturday Sabbath?
---Mark_V. on 4/16/12


Warwick:

I refuse to answer this question for three reasons:
1) When the Pharisees asked Jesus trick questions that were designed to trap, rather than elicit useful information, he also refused to answer.
2) What you and I believe is not relevant. Only what the Bible actually says is relevant.
3) The question is not answerable. There is no "specific period". The Bible doesn't say those days were 24 hours (in fact it NEVER EVER mentions 24 hours anywhere), and it doesn't say they were any other specific length either. It just plain does not say.

It's like asking the question "I'm thinking of a number. If you don't think it's 7, what is it?". There can be no "correct" answer to such a question.
---StrongAxe on 4/15/12


LeeAxe, the topic is God's word throughout. The whole debate on this site from full blown atheists, cultists, liberals and confused compromisers as yourself is over the truth of God's word.
---Warwick on 4/15/12


Warick You really need to stick to the thread topic which is NOT your silly view that the earth was created in 24 hour days.

The thread topic is the Levitical food laws - laws which were created by God to separate Israel from other peoples. However, No one has yet to find anything in the New Covenant that restricts believers from eating any types of foods. Adventists have to maintain the church became corrupt after the death of the last Apostle and then they started to commit heinous sins by what they ate. BULLroar!!!!
---lee1538 on 4/15/12


StrongAxe, on another thread you refused to answer what should be a simple question if there is doubt that the days of creation are 24hrs.

I am convinced they are 24hr days, and nothing else for a number of reasons. This particular reason is that the wording of Genesis 1:3-5, in two different ways, describes the components of a 24hr day. But as I expected you have attempted to duck the question.

I will put it again more simply: I believe Genesis 1:3-5 defines a 24hr day as it spells out the components of a 24hr day. If you believe these days can be of some other length please tell me what other time-period, other that a 24hr day, is (as Genesis 1:3-5 says) composed of daylight and nighttime, and evening and morning?
---Warwick on 4/15/12




---StrongAxe on 4/14/12

You sound as if god does not make up his mind what clean and uncelan means in terns of diet until moses comes along.

I credit God as an all knowing God who knew before he made any animal which of them were clean ( to be eaten and sacrified) and not clean

I am totaly baffled by you idea that God somehow told noah that some were clean and others unclean and yet allowed noah to eat what was unclean.
---francis on 4/15/12


francis:

1) NONE of the verses you quote make any mention of food.

2) Clean is not the same as holy.

3) 1 Peter was written thousands of years AFTER Noah, so it didn't apply to him.

So, again, making assumptions that Noah would have eaten only clean animals after God told him he could eat all animals, is pure supposition on your part.
---StrongAxe on 4/15/12


You said: God would not have told him that they were unclean,and then ask him to eat something unclean. God is a Holy God, and expects his people to be Holy.

That is pure assumption based on your own "common sense" opinion, since no verses support it. ---StrongAxe on 4/14/12
1 Peter 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy.

Leviticus 10:10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean,


God did not start to be holy after sin, God has always been a Holy God
---francis on 4/14/12


francis:

You said: God would not have told him that they were unclean,and then ask him to eat something unclean. God is a Holy God, and expects his people to be Holy.

That is pure assumption based on your own "common sense" opinion, since no verses support it. What makes one "unclean"? Both have virtually identical biological systems, so it isn't biology. It means CEREMONIALLY unclean - that is, unsuitable for ritual purposes. Leviticus 10 lists commandments to PRIESTS who have specific RITUAL restrictions. Eating is not a ritual purpose for most of the rest of us.

If you happen to be descended from Levi and perform animal sacrifices in the temple, however, they may still apply to you.
---StrongAxe on 4/14/12


I totally agree with the verse and all it possible implications. But the verse does NOT support your view that what Jesus told Israel also pertains to us. ---lee1538 on 4/14/12

Who is us? or are you forgetting that nonisraelities are GRAFTED into ISRAEL?
Romans 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

Romans 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.



yes, God established physical cirucmcision
---lee1538 on 4/14/12

I do not think that you understand the purpose of circumcision. I suggest you study that very closely
---francis on 4/14/12


//Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines.

I totally agree with the verse and all it possible implications. But the verse does NOT support your view that what Jesus told Israel also pertains to us. In fact, Jesus annulled the dietary laws as we can easily see that in what He stated in the New Testament.
---lee1538 on 4/14/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


//Your doctrine on dietary laws is strange and different from what God established yesterday which is the same today and tomorow
forever

yes, God established physical cirucmcision with Abraham and commanded it to be performed on all that were Hebrews. So you say we as Christians should become circumcised as Jesus never changes?

Sorry Frances but that verse in Hebrews 13:8 does not mean Jesus cannot change what He has commanded of people from one covenant to another. It speaks of His nature, not of His dealing with the creation.
---lee1538 on 4/14/12


---lee1538 on 4/13/12
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines

Your doctrine on dietary laws is strange and different from what God established yesterday which is the same today and tomorow
forever



---StrongAxe on 4/13/12
God would not have told him that they were unclean,and then ask him to eat something unclean. God is a Holy God, and expects his people to be Holy.

However, it is not the purpose of the book of Genesis to tell us the Law of God. That role is reserved for the book of Deuteronomy.

Leviticus 10:10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean,
---francis on 4/14/12


In contrast to the view Francis promotes, I tend to agree with Jesus that whatever goes into the stomach does not defile one but what comes from the heart.

And I tend to agree with the Spirit of Jesus when he declared that one person may eat everything while another can eat only vegatables.

And again, "Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do."

And And the New Testament epistles makes NO DISTINCTION as to clean or unclean foods.

The early Gentile church did NOT teach the Levitical dietary laws.


We conclude that Francis' view is a minority view primarily bec it has the least support either in scripture or in church history.
---lee1538 on 4/13/12


francis:

As I have pointed out 2-3 times already: Noah knew which animals were clean from which were unclean. He even sacrificed clean animals.

HOWEVER, God's commandment to him as to what he could eat DID NOT DISTINGUISH clean animals from unclean ones, and there is no mention that Noah ate one and not the other.

This is NOT a discussion about which animals which were on the Ark. This is NOT a discussion about which animals were appropriate to sacrifice. This IS a discussion about which animals are appropriate to EAT, and with respect to Noah, there is NO INDICATION that there was any distiction between eating clean and unclean animals.
---StrongAxe on 4/13/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


One of the things I would like to point out is this Jesus made the statement
Mark 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, [it] cannot defile him,

Mark 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

Several years before he died.

It would not make sense for Jesus to allow people to eat what under the Old Covenant was unclean and defiled and was an abomination, when he himself lived under the old covenant

Does everyone understand that statement?
---francis on 4/13/12


The Bible regulations were health laws. Like washing your hands before you eat. These helped to stop the spread of disease and was supposed to lead to a longer life.

Exd 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I [am] the LORD that healeth thee.

So we should not eat what GOD said is bad to eat. Sounds reasonable.
---Samuel on 4/13/12


---Mark_V. on 4/13/12
I amnot sure what you are trying to say. you do not seem to know either. But Paul is talking about meat offered to idols. By the way in the bible what sort of meats did pagans offer to their gods?

Acts 14:13 Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought OXEN and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people.


---StrongAxe on 4/13/12
I am still not sure what you are trying to say. Noah was told to take the clean ones by seven,a dn unclean by two, then he sacrificed the cleanones, so how then did he not know clean from unclean?
---francis on 4/13/12


francis, all Paul was refering here was to what he had already said before in (Romans 14). (Rom 10:25,26) Paul is quoting (Ps. 24:1) decaring that believers, though not participating in idol ceremonies (v.18-20), should not hesitate to buy meat once used in such ceremonies and eat it without guilt (1 Tim. 4:4,5). "Eat whatever" So as to not offend the unbeliever. (v.28,29) Even if you are the guest of an unbeliever and don't want to offend him, it is better to offend the unbeliever and not eat for the sake of the weaker Christian who would be offended to eat since love to other believers is the strongest witness we have (John 13:34,35).
---Mark_V. on 4/13/12


Shop For Church Bulletins & Supplies


francis:

Before the fall, God gave Adam and Eve a list of things they could eat: fruits from all trees but one. After the fall, he added herbs from the ground. After the flood, he let Noah eat all living things except ones with life in them. These are specific lists, and there is no distinction between clean and unclean animals.

You may use your own "common sense" to tell you that this shouldn't include unclean animals.

The Pharisees also used their common sense to tell them vows to God superceded other obligations. Jesus said that they thus made God's word void by their traditions. By beliving your own interpretation above what the Bible ACTUALLY says in black and white, aren't you doing the same thing?
---StrongAxe on 4/13/12


---StrongAxe on 4/13/12
I am not sure what you mean. explain further. Are you saying that there was not a list as we have in leviticus and Deuteronomy, or are you saying that Noah did not know that he could eat only the clean animals


---Mark_V. on 4/13/12
Just because it is offered to idols ( WHICH IS THE CONTEXT) does not mean it is unclean
1 Corinthians 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, [that] eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

1 Corinthians 10:26 For the earth [is] the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.

1 Corinthians 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you [to a feast], and ye be disposed to go, whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
---francis on 4/13/12


francis:

Yes. The distinction between clean and unclean animals was made before the Flood (because Noah took 7 of each clean one). He even made the distinction when he made the sacrifice. However, there was no such distinction about which animals to EAT, and food laws are what we are discussing here - not Ark accomodations, or sacrificial animals.
---StrongAxe on 4/13/12


francis, concerning foods. "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself, but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean" if your consciouse tells you something is unclean, let it be unclean to you. We are not to destroy our love for you because you believe something is unclean, it would not show our love. Then Paul said in (Rom. 14:14),
"Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith, for whatever is not of faith is sin." (Rom. 14:22). and because I believe (v.14) that there is nothing unclean of itself.
---Mark_V. on 4/13/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


So basically you are saying that we should use our own common sense ---StrongAxe on 4/12/12

Not personal opinion: Proverbs 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

But spiritual disernment:
1 Cor 2:13 not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.


THAT particular distinction wasn't made until the time of Moses - and was NOT made to Noah. ---StrongAxe on 4/12/12

Genesis 8:20 Noah builded an altar unto the LORD, and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

I am 100% that noah knew clean from unclean the BIBLE says so
---francis on 4/12/12


francis:

So basically you are saying that we should use our own common sense (i.e. personal opinions, which are subjective) to override what the Bible actually says in black and white.

If God had meant to say "every clean animal", why didn't he say so? He could easily have done so. The fact that he declared some animals clean and unclean didn't necessarily mean one was edible and the other wasn't. THAT particular distinction wasn't made until the time of Moses - and was NOT made to Noah. YOU may think it's obvious in retrospect (since you've read the law of Moses) but it wasn't necessarily obvious before that.
---StrongAxe on 4/12/12


We are not in the abolished old testament levitical- Mosaic law of B.C., the ministry of death: we in the currently inforce New Testament Judaic-Messianic Law of A.D., the ministry of life.
---Eloy on 4/12/12


In genesis God has already decleared sme animals to be unclean and some clean. If he speaks of eating every moving thing, disernment says every clean thing

In Timothy he says every creature s good, Disernment again says it is every creature which is sanctified by the word of Dod

We know already that the word of God does not sanctify every single creature for food.

1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
---francis on 4/12/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


//The phrase " the word of God" here refers ONLY to what is written in the book of the OT.

And that is the problem with some Adventists in that they limit the word of God to the Old Testament alone and in doing so they promote the Galatians heresy by advocating adherence to laws that are strictly Jewish in nature.

Physical circumcision, the Sabbath, the feasts and the dietary laws all belong to the Old Covenant dispensation and are not part of the New Covenant of His church.
---lee1538 on 4/12/12


francis:

1 Timothy 4:3 says "every creature" not say "every clean creature".

You said: Giving them an additional optional diet is not going back on his word

It could only be ADDITIONAL if it wasn't available before. If it was available before, why mention it at all?

Besides, it had previously been an option under Noah: Genesis 9:3:
"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you, even as the green herb have I given you all things."

However, this permission was taken away by Moses. So God changed the rules about pork THREE TIMES (Adam no, Noah yes, Moses no, Jesus yes).
---StrongAxe on 4/12/12


\\commanding to abstain from meats,\\

To clarify something here, the word the KJV translates "meat" is NOT the word for flesh of animals (KREAS), but the general word for food.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/12/12


1 Timothy 4:3 commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by "the word of God" and prayer.

The phrase " the word of God" here refers ONLY to what is written in the book of the OT. in context it referrs to teh dietary laws where God sanctified some food for meat.

because at that time theer ws no NT books, phrases like "it is written" and " word of God" refers only to the OT

So again in the Nt we see that we can only eat what God has sanctified throgh his deitary laws
---francis on 4/12/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


God did not permit Adam and Eve to eat meat. He did not explicitly forbid it to them either,
---StrongAxe on 4/11/12

And what I am saying is that for God to have been double minded, he would have had to forbid them from eating something which he already allowed them to eat. Giving them an additional optional diet is not going back on his word. Do you understand what I am saying?

Also remember God did not permit Adam and eve to kill any of the animals until after sin
---francis on 4/11/12


francis:

Genesis 2:16: (Before the fall) Adam and Eve could freely eat of any tree in the garden (except one)
Genesis 3:18: (After the fall) They would eat the herb of the field
Genesis 9:4: (After the flood) Noah and his sons could eat the flesh of any living thing (just not flesh with life in it)

God did not permit Adam and Eve to eat meat. He did not explicitly forbid it to them either, but he also didn't forbid human flesh, so does that mean human flesh is OK? I hope not!
---StrongAxe on 4/11/12


God is holy. In our context it means that God does not tolerate sin at all.

Leviticus 11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you, ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

Now the holiness of God cannot change after the cross that he would find what is an abomination to be clean and holy

Ezekiel 44:23 And they shall teach my people [the difference] between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.

After the cross there must be a difference because HOLY IS NOT SUBJECTIVE it is what God is
---francis on 4/11/12


If God had indeed forbid animals before the flood and then state that they could be eaten that would be double minded. There are no text forbiding animals. Also notice that animals were killed after sin.

Note well, that no animals was killed before sin. Note well that the only reason that any animal died was because of sin.

So animals were killed before the flood, and after the flood we see that God allowed man to partake of the animal that was killed.
Now man could continue to eat as much herb as possible. God never changed his mind about that.

The next thing I want to talk about is THE HOLINESS OF GOD and SIN.

God is holy also means that SIn cannot stand in his presence, not before or after the cross
---francis on 4/11/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


//You said: To ADD something would not be double minded.

Nor would it be double minded for God to SUBTRACT or take away something. For instance, God commanded physical circumcision in the Old Covenant dispensation and removed it in the New Covenant. Acts 15

Francis does not want to admit it, but God also took away the restrictions on what believers may eat as well as what day they wish to worship on. Romans 14.

But what can be said of those who view religion as some kind of fun and games? And it is fun for some to play religion by refraining from certain foods, observe holy days, and dance around an altar proclaiming oneself to be more righteous than others. 2Co 10:12
---lee1538 on 4/11/12


francis:

You said: To ADD something would not be double minded.

So let me get this straight. To forbid something before, but to allow it now, would NOT be double minded?

So it was OK for God to forbid clean animals before Noah, but allow them after Noah?

Would it not be similarly OK for God to forbid other animals before Jesus, but allow them after Jesus?
---StrongAxe on 4/11/12


God did not permit man to eat animals before the Flood. God DID permit man to eat clean animals after the flood. Was God double minded THEN?
---StrongAxe on 4/11/12
To ADD something would not be double minded.
God would have been doubleminded ONLY if he then forbad man to eat herbs and such.


Other examples of God adding includes the earthly sanctuary whch those before Moses did not have.
---francis on 4/11/12


francis:

God did not permit man to eat animals before the Flood. God DID permit man to eat clean animals after the flood. Was God double minded THEN?
---StrongAxe on 4/11/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


Context is importand and never contradicts doctrine

Matthew 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

In this context God is talking about eating with UNWASHEN HANDS. Not clean or unclean meats

Romans 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

In this context it is herbs or " all things."
ANYTHING?
1 Corinthians 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
1 Corinthians 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake

Again not about clean or unclean
---francis on 4/11/12


If God at one time says do not eat swine, then next times says eat swine then God is double minded.
---francis on 4/10/12

You keep missing the point of Romans 10:4 and not connecting it to what Jesus said himself in Matt 5:17

During the Old Covenant, the Law was used to accomplish righteousness. To fulfill the requirements of the Law required atonement for sins. Atonement was only accomplished with the shed blood of innocent animals. The atonement had to constantly be renewed.

Jesus made a permanent atonement for our sins that does not need to be renewed. We are no longer concerned with the Law for righteousness sake because without the atonement Jesus made, we would need to be concerned with sacrifices of animals.
---Mark_Eaton on 4/11/12


---StrongAxe on 4/10/12
1 John 3:4 for sin is the transgression of the law.

Romans 7:7 I had not known sin, but by the law:

So it is not a matter of context it is what the laws says.

Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law,

If God were to be angry and some for eating swine, and pleased with others for eating swine then God would be a respecter of person.

If God at one time says do not eat swine, then next times says eat swine then God is double minded.

James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
---francis on 4/10/12


Romans 14:2-3 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.

To the Judaizing legalists, these verses do not mean what everyone else says they mean. They have to twist the daylight out of scripture to get it to support their beliefs.

They connect it with the eating of meat offered to idols. But that is not the interpretation that the church has had for the past 20 centuries.
---lee1538 on 4/10/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


People who are part of the Covenant of Moses agree to do certain things (and not do others). To do those things is wrong FOR THEM, but not for others ---StrongAxe on 4/10/12

Are you suggesting that those who have no covenant with God are free to do as they please with no penalty of sin, or that the penalty of sin only applies to those who agree to do or not to do a thing?

Will those who have not covenant with God be subject to sin for idol worship? The men of Sodom and those in Noah's days, did they sin seeing that they had no covenant?

Genesis 15:16 for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
These had no covenant with God what right did God have to change them with iniquity?
---francis on 4/10/12


lee, Romans 14:2-3. A-men.
---Eloy on 4/10/12


francis:

Whether an act is sin is frequently a matter of CONTEXT. The reason it was wrong for Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree was because God told them not to - NOT because the tree was intrinsically evil (if it were, why would God put it there in the first place?)

If you sleep with your wife, that is not a sin. If somebody else does, that IS a sin. Same act, different CONTEXT.

If you go into a store and eat a donut, it's fine if you pay before you eat it, not fine if you don't. CONTEXT.

People who are part of the Covenant of Moses agree to do certain things (and not do others). To do those things is wrong FOR THEM, but not for others (although there might be other reasons they are wrong too. Murder, for example).
---StrongAxe on 4/10/12


Yes indeed StrongAxle, if you are under the law and eat swine meat, Francis is correct, you are cursed and guilty of sin and will be condemned even if you are in Christ.

Ga 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse, for it is written, Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.

Don't tell anyone but Francis does light a fire in his home on the sabbath to cook his food and heat his home (Exodus 35z,3). He is a lawbreaker but simply cannot see his own gross sinfulness.
---lee1538 on 4/10/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


---StrongAxe on 4/10/12
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death,
Isaiah 66:17 They that..eat swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

It does not say covenant here it is says for eating swine.
If you look at the new covenant it does have GODS LAW in it

Exodus 32:33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

I cannot stess this enough. If god blotted out anyone for any sin, it would notbe just for him to allow anyone in heaven for the same act.

This would mean that Jesus died for thier sin, while allowing us to commit the very same acts
---francis on 4/10/12


The Levitical dietary laws were not imposed onto the Gentile believers.

The Epistle to the Romans was written to a church that was basically Gentile as the Jews had been kicked out of Rome by Claudius. Acts 18:2


Romans 14:2-3 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.

Those that advocate adherence to the OT dietary laws are either Jewish or Judaizers.
---lee1538 on 4/10/12


francis:

They will be punished, not for doing something intrinsically evil, but for disobeying the covenant they agreed to. They are part of that covenant. We are not.

Nazirites are forbidden women, alcohol, and haircuts (and we saw what happened to Samson when he violated all three of these prohibitions). This doesn't mean wine, women, and barbers are themselves intrinsically evil - only forbidden to Nazirites because they vowed to avoid them.
---StrongAxe on 4/10/12


Isaiah 65:3 A people that provoketh me to anger.. which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels,
Isaiah 66:17 They that eat swine's flesh,..shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

Do you think that the justice of God is such that he would be angry with those who ate swine before the cross and acceptable of those who ate swine after the cross?

This would mean that christ died for the sins of those before the cross, but died so that those after the cross may commit the same acts for which jesus died.

Sp I ask: Is it JUSTICE that those before the cross should burn in the late of fire for eating swine, while those after the cross live in heaven?
---francis on 4/10/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


And in the New Testament, we have a new convenant, with all nations, which supercedes the old one which was with the Jews only. ---StrongAxe on 4/9/12

There is nothing in the bible that says old covenant ws for Jews only. Where did you get that from?

Second of all the new textemet is NOT NEW LAW.
let me repeat that IT IS NOT NEW LAW.

THE NEW TESTEMENT DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT SIN IS.

Think about christ dying for YOUR sin. Take any individual sin, like eating any unclean animal.
Do you think that after Jesus died because man commited this act, that God would then find if acceptable?

If what SIN is has changed, then christ did not die for YOUR sin, only for those who sinned before he died: More on that to come
---francis on 4/9/12


francis:

Do you think God changed the human genotype the moment man set foot off the Ark? Yet man was allowed to eat only vegetables before the Flood, and animals were only permitted afterwards. This had nothing to do with biology - it had to do with God's covenents with man, which DID change.

And in the New Testament, we have a new convenant, with all nations, which supercedes the old one which was with the Jews only. Are you a Jew living under the old covenent, and subject to its condemnations? I'm not, and very thankful of it!
---StrongAxe on 4/9/12


My car's manual says that I am to put unleaded in the gas tank. The manufacturer appears to know what is the best fuel for my car.

God also knows what is the best fuel for his creation.

I do not think God made a mistake when he sais what we should put in our bodies and what we should avoid.

I do not think that the physiology and anatomy of Abraham was different to mine, so why should we have different diets?
---francis on 4/9/12


We are not in the abolished old testament levitical- Mosaic law, the ministry of death: we in the currently inforce New Testament Judaic-Messianic Law, the ministry of life.
---Eloy on 4/8/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


---willie_c: on 4/8/12
We keep the sexuality morality laws, we keep the laws about honouring parents, we keep the laws about worshiping one God. Why then should we not keep the dietary food laws?

We do we not keep the death penalty laws, and the animal sacrifice laws:
1 Corinthians 5:7 Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

christ died for US, and by His death and resurrecion we are partakers of the divine nature whereby we have the strength to over come sin in our mortal bodies.

Which means that because we have the divine nature we can resist adultery and all forms of abomination
---francis on 4/8/12


There are no laws that are for jews only. The laws of God are given to those who love God with all thier hearts

As for non-jews in Christ attempting to move away from their roots, the bible says this: Romans 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

The movement to remove such roots as sabbath and dietary laws, and replace them with pagan roots like sunworship and eating the unclean is contrary to God unchanging word

Any one who desires to serve God and meditates on the meaning of :Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. will return to their " jewish roots."
---francis on 4/8/12


In James, we have, "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (James 2:24) One example James gives of works is to help "a brother or sister" who "is naked and destitute of daily food" (in James 2:15). Also, James gives the example of how Abraham "offered Isaac his son on the altar" (in James 2:21), plus "Rahab the harlot" "received the messengers and sent them out another way" (in James 2:25). I notice how there is personal helping here, and Abraham personally communicated with God about offering his son Isaac. These works, then, I consider, are works of personal loving, not copy-catting religious practices.
---willie_c: on 4/8/12


Francis //A better translation would be For Christ is the GOAL of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Why is that a better translation? If it were then why have not Bible translators translated it as such? Clear Word Bible?

Or it this another one of your attempts to force the Christian back under laws that are strictly Jewish such as is the Sabbath and the Levitical dietary laws (Lev. 11:2f)?
---lee1538 on 4/8/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


In everyday plain English -

Romans 10:4 For Christ has already accomplished the purpose for which the law was given. As a result, all who believe in him are made right with God.

As to those who promote adherence to the law for their righteousness -

Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law (for anything) are under a curse, for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them."

The righteous are to live by faith.

Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for The righteous shall live by faith. (3:11)
---lee1538 on 4/8/12


Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

A better translation would be For Christ is the GOAL of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Meaning that the law points to christ as a means to righteousness. Not that Christ ended the law to bring righteousness or not that christ ended the law that brought righteousness

For Christ is the GOAL of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes, Believes what?

1: That he is our sacrifce for sin
2: That he is our high priest
3: That he is our mediator

In short to everyone who understand the law of the sanctuary which end was to point us to Jesus as our righteousness
---francis on 4/8/12


And if we are expected to keep food laws, are we not also expected to keep the death penalty laws which command death by stoning, and the laws about animal sacrifices . . . if these also are "immutable"? Why pick and choose?

Paul says, "not even those who are circumcised keep the law," in Galatians 6:13.

He also says, "the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." (in Galatians 3:24-25) So, I can see the law is unchangeable . . . in its purpose.

And if we do what Jesus means by His word, "you will find rest for your souls," in Matthew 11:29.
---willie_c: on 4/8/12


francis //and the dietary laws were given BEFORE Israel and before Levi it was gien to the whole world before there was a jew,

---
WRONG AGAIN!!!!!

Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you EVERYTHING.

The Jews were descendant of Abraham, the first Hebrew.

The fact that both clean & unclean animals entered the ark was from the perspective of Moses. He even depicted Abraham as the most godly model as he obeyed God's "voice and kept [His] charge, [His] commandments, [His] statutes, and [His] laws" - none of which were the distinctives of the Mosaic legislation.
---lee1538 on 4/7/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


Francis//So Jesus only the end of the sabbath, circumcision, and dietary laws: Are these all what was required for righteousness? NOT!!!

You are obviously ignorant of what the Bible states:

Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Of course, you may not recognize that there was a sabbath law, laws regarding circumcision, as well as dietary laws.

Are you in such a fervor in your worship of the Adventism idol that you are losing any sense you may have acquired?
---lee1538 on 4/7/12


All the commands in the Decalogue are repeated in the New Covenant except the Sabbath.
---lee1538 on 4/4/12

So Jesus only the end of the sabbath, circumcusion, and dietary laws: Are these all what was required for righteousness? NOT!!!

LOL LOL LOL

Jesus is the creater that is why we have the sabbath, IN the NT did Jesus stop being the creater?


and the dietary laws were given BEFORE Israel and before Levi it was gien to the whole world before there was a jew,

Genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female
---francis on 4/7/12


//Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil

And Jesus DID FULFILL the law, if fact if you were to believe the scripture, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Romans 10:4

And that would include those who truly believe "food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do." 1 Cor. 8:8.

The law can never make you righteous or justify you before God.

Sorry but your view that Christians are restricted as to food types cannot be supported either by Scripture or what has been the true teachings of His church since in conception.
---lee1538 on 4/7/12


francis//Leviticus 11:43 Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.

I pity the poor soul who will not examine the context and gets sucked into the bondage of your religion.

Consider the verse that follows -

(11:45) For I am the LORD who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

I keep asking Jerky if his ancestors did the mud or work with straw in making those bricks in Egypt, but he will not give an answer. So what is yours?

Sorry but most of us Christians were never in Egypt nor did we become Jews when we became Christians.
---lee1538 on 4/7/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


So the conclusion clearly is that what goes into the stomach, what we eat does not defile us.
---lee1538 on 4/7/12
Leviticus 11:43 Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil

Again in CONTEXTof MATHEW 15 jesus is nottalking about clean and unclean but eating with unwashed hands

It is claer to those with wisdom that if Jesus was to annul any law, it had to be AT THE CROSS. And it is clear that this would be way way before the cross.

Jesus did not destroy the dietary laws
---francis on 4/7/12


francis//Matthew 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

the concluson is the tradition of eating with UNWASHED HANDS does not defile
----
But do we with justification ignore the fact Jesus stated -

"And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him, Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man."

So the conclusion clearly is that what goes into the stomach, what we eat does not defile us.
---lee1538 on 4/7/12


Matthew 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the TRADITION OF THE ELDERS? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

The context is not about clean and unclean meats

Matthew 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by YOUR TRADITION?

The context suggest a man made tradition( in this case manditory washng fo hands after touching gentiles/ befere eating) which was not commanded by God

Matthew 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

the concluson is that the tradition of eating with UNWASHED HANDS does not defile

No mention of clean and unclean meats at all
---francis on 4/7/12


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.