Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
23 online now:
Faith (1 member, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,868 Year: 16,904/19,786 Month: 1,029/2,598 Week: 275/251 Day: 3/43 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Jesus Declare All Food Clean?
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 16 of 88 (846731)
01-11-2019 12:32 AM


Mark chapter 7 is not the same as Matthew chapter 15 in an important respect.
The Big difference is in a FEW added words in Mark 7.

(I am going from memory in this Greek words part and am probably a bit off)

KATHARTA PANTA AT BROMATA ("purging/cleansing all meats")

The King James says "Purging all foods" in Mark 7, and it very probably means "CLEANSING all foods".

It is absent in Matthew 15.

Matthew 15 simply has the NOTHING FROM OUTSIDE CAN DEFILE A PERSON (Like Mark 7 also says).

The evangelical Tyndale Commentary (which I cannot quote at this time) says that the NOTHING FROM OUTSIDE could simply be a Semitic construction that does not mean what it sounds like in English.

(EXAMPLE TO ILLUSTRATE: The superlative "bigger" in Semitic is used by saying "Goliath is bigger FROM David" and it means "bigger THAN")

Here is the Steven Mason commentary on Mark 7.

His work is Early Christian Reader.

(The Greek word used in Matthew 15 and Mark 7, which is translated "traditions" in English, is the exact same Greek word Josephus used to describe the ORAL LAW teachings that the Pharisees used, which was a "law" very much opposed by the Saducees/Zadokites who only followed the written LAW OF MOSES or Torah)

quote:

Mason

p.307 ( mark)

7:15-23 This section is only tangentially related to what precedes. There Jesus rejected the Pharisees’ special tradition as a human tradition. Here he is in dialogue with biblical laws, observed by Jews around the Roman world, concerning suitable food; the divine commandments explicitly declare unclean several varieties of bird, seafood, and land animal (Deut. 14:1-21). Jesus’ reported words do not necessarily reject these laws. His formulation “there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile” is a typically Semitic construction whose approximate meaning is that what comes out of a person is much more important than what goes in. Compare the prophets’ call for “mercy, not sacrifice” (Hos. 6:6), which was not an appeal to end divinely mandated sacrifice but an insistence that mercy was more urgent and that only sacrifice in conjunction with mercy was acceptable.
….
7:19 he declared all foods clean The author understands Jesus’ statement “there is nothing outside that…can defile” in an absolute way, rather than in the relative sense typical of Semitic speech…This is by no means a necessary deduction, and it was not followed my Matthew, which retains Jesus’ words, but drops Mark’s interpretation and also presents Jesus as requiring scrupulous observance of Moses’ laws (15:17-18; see 5:17-21). …In the controversies that ensued, as far as we know, no one cited the precedent of Jesus himself. It appears, then, the author of Mark has read back into Jesus’ lifetime the practices of his own Gentile community.


Here is an evangelical commentary.

See some selected notes for Mark 7

quote:

The New American Commentary
Mark
James Brooks
(Broadman Press, 1991)

….

Back flap

…interpretation that emphasizes the theological unity of each book and of Scripture as a whole;

Blurb on back flap

…basic is the foundational commitment of the authors to the full trustworthiness of Scripture. …
-George Brushaber, Executive Editor
Christianity Today
….

SIDE FLAP (DUST COVER)

The New American Commentary assumes the inerrancy of Scripture…

....

p.28

7. Date

The tradition that circulated in the early church dated the writing of Mark’s Gospel either shortly before or shortly after Peter’s death in A.D. 64 or 65. Although a large segment of contemporary scholarship disregards the tradition, there is widespread agreement that Mark was written between A.D. 65 and 75. Crucial in the minds of most is the relationship of Mark to the Neronian persecution in Rome during A.D. 64-65 and/or to the Jewish revolt against Rome between A.D. 66 and 70 (actually the last resistance at Masada was not crushed until A.D. 73 or 74). The Gospel mentions neither, but it is difficult to evaluate the significance of this because the remainder of the New Testament is silent also, even though some of the books almost certainly were written after these events.

This commentary regards the allusions to persecutions (e.g. 8:34-38; 10:38-40) as too general for Mark to have been written in Rome after the outbreak of the Neronian persecution, an event that must have dominated the church there for at least a decade after A.D. 64-65. The Gospel reflects apprehension of persecution or other trouble, but it does not reflect a persecution in progress or one in the very recent past. Also, quite apart from any supernatural insight on his part, there is no reason Jesus could not have predicted the persecution of his followers. This commentary does not take chap. 13 to indicate that the Jewish revolt had begun. If these presuppositions are correct, and if Mark was written in Rome as seems most likely, it must have been written shortly before the beginning of the persecution of Nero and therefore in A.D. 63 or the first half of A.D. 64. If in fact Peter had any input, an earlier [p.30] date is not likely because it is improbable that he went to Rome before A.D. 62(he is not mentioned in the Prison Epistles-Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon-which probably were written from Rome between A.D. 60 and 62; nor is he mentioned in Paul’s letter to Rome about A.D. 56-57).
….

P.113

[ Mark 7]

Although the major concern of this section is that Jesus rejected the oral interpretation of the written law, something more appears in the third account (vv. 14-23). Jesus seems to have rejected one aspect of the Mosaic law, that of ritual cleanness. The early church struggled with what should be its attitude toward the Mosaic law in general and food laws in particular, and this was a reason for Mark’s treatment of the subject.

Mark probably intended this section on scribal tradition as a transition and as an introduction to Jesus’ ministry to Gentiles beyond the traditional boundaries of Palestine (7:24-8:10). With the stranglehold of Jewish tradition broken, the gospel could go out to all people; and Christianity could become a universal religion.

….

[niv text “7:2 …hands that were “unclean”…7:5 …eating their food with ‘unclean hands’?” ]

….

p.114

7:2 The scribes and Pharisees were not concerned with hygiene but with ritual purity. Mark clarified that by explaining the word “unclean” for his Gentile readers who were not familiar with Jewish practices. In classical Greek the word translated “unclean” meant public as opposed to private, and that meaning is found in the LXX (the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament). In 1 Macc 1:47,62, however, it means ritually unclean, and that is certainly the meaning here. In the Old Testament ritual washings were imposed primarily upon the priests (e.g., Exod 30:17-21; 40:12), but apparently by the first century the scribes and Pharisees had begun to practice them and to attempt to impose them on all Jews (cf. v. 3).

p.115

….

The Mishna tractate Yadaim (meaning Hands) deals with ritual washings but does not enlighten the present passage. The interpreter must confess his or her inability to determine the matter. Some factors, however, point to minor defilement, which requires a superficial washing as opposed to major defilement, which requires total immersion (cf. v. 4).

The “tradition of the elders” is simply the oral, scribal interpretation of the written, Mosaic law. This tradition was later (ca. A.D. 220) collected and reduced to writing in the Mishna. The “elders” were scribes, Pharisees, leaders of synagogues, and revered persons in general.

….

[ NIV TEXT “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me 7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’]

7:6-7 The quotation is from Isa 29:13 LXX, which differs slightly from the Hebrew text. The point attributed to Jesus is best made in the Greek rather than the Hebrew version of Isaiah, but it is not absent from the Hebrew text. The basic point of both versions of Isaiah is that external observance is no substitute for inward piety. A more serious problem is whether Jesus the Palestinian Jew would have known and used the Septuagint. Quite frankly the LXX wording of the quotation may be due to Mark rather than Jesus. Jesus no doubt quoted the verse in Aramaic; Mark had to use some translation. As a result of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, it is now known that several [p. 116] different Hebrew texts circulated in first-century Palestine. Jesus may have used the one that earlier had been used as the basis of the LXX rather than the LXX itself.

....

p.117

7:14 The main passages that treat Jewish food laws are Lev 11 and Deut 14:1-21. The early church had difficulty deciding what to do with these laws and other questions about food (Acts 10:1-11:18; 15:1-29; Rom 14; 1 Cor 8:1-11:1; Gal 2:11-14; Col 2:20-23). Mark found in the material available to him some teaching of Jesus about the matter. It is not as clear as the modern reader might think, or it would have settled the question, which obviously it did not. Although the statement in v. 15 is called a …

….

p.118

7:18-19 …Food merely goes first into the stomach and then into the latrine (so the Greek text; cf. “into the drain,” NEB, REB and “into the sewer,” NRSV, which, however, are anachronisms).
….

…One Greek manuscript of medium quality has “into the bowl.”

[earlier on p. 118]
….
The parenthetical statement at the end of v. 19 is Mark’s understanding of the ultimate significance of Jesus’ teaching, not what Jesus said at the time. There is, however, nothing in the Greek text corresponding to the NIV’s insertion “In saying this, Jesus declared.” It says simply but very awkwardly “cleansing all foods,” and it is barely possible that the reference is not to the intention of Jesus’ teaching but to food ultimately being disposed of in a latrine, namely, that all foods are equal in the end.


It should be pointed out that the interpretation that the Mark 7 words (using the word Kathar) mean CLEANSING (as opposed to purging) all foods are from the idea that Mark added to the words of Jesus. If scholars actually assumed that the words were the words of Jesus, then the weight would shift toward the REMOVING/PURGING interpretation.

Mark wrote after 60 A.D.

Jesus spoke in the 20s.

Fundamentalist (pork eaters!) Christians don't understand that the scholarly assumption for a CLEANSING translation comes from the idea that "Mark" added words a half a century later. (I can offer examples to back up my point IF people don't think that I have actually read the scholars enough to make such a claim)


Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by candle2, posted 01-13-2019 10:14 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 17 of 88 (846733)
01-11-2019 1:05 AM


Old Syriac had a "purging" translation
Here are my zip drive notes. for Mark 7:19

quote:

MARK 7:19

-Willis Barnstone-
Since it doesn’t enter the heart but the stomach
And goes into the sewer, purging all foods.

-Old Syriac-
BECAUSE IT ENTERETH NOT INTO HIS HEART, BUT INTO THE BELLY
AND IS CAST OUT, AND ALL MEAT IS PURGED

NRSV (?) (Robinson, Mason)
SINCE IT ENTERS, NOT INTO THE HEART BUT THE STOMACH,
AND GOES OUT INTO THE SEWER? (THUS HE DECLARED ALL FOODS CLEAN)

RSV
Since it enters, not his heart but his stomach,
And so passes on?” b (Thus he declared all foods clean)
b Or is evacuated

-NIV-
For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach,
And then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean)


The Old Syriac translation was an English translation from the 19th century I think.

(The Old Syriac was nothing more than a translation of the standard Greek Matthew, but the significance is in the fact that Semitic idioms were common across the Semitic world, so they had an understanding of what certain sayings meant, even if they were taking a GREEK text back to Semitic)

(The Old Syriac - TRANSLATIONS from Greek - might have had the added advantage of being in AN AREA THAT POSSESSED actual traditions and/or Hebrew/Aramaic texts that are no longer extant, but were present around the early to mid 3rd century A.D.)


Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by candle2, posted 01-12-2019 11:29 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
candle2
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 18 of 88 (846829)
01-12-2019 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by LamarkNewAge
01-11-2019 1:05 AM


Re: Old Syriac had a "purging" translation
Some rely on Mark 7:18-19 to support their claim that Christians can now eat
unclean (contaminated, polluted, unhealthy) meat.

However, the issue in Mark 7 isn't about clean/unclean meat, but unwashed
hands.

It should be clear, to everyone with an open mind, that Mark 7 is about the
Purification of food by the body's digestive process, and it's elimination of
minor impurities as the result of unwashed hands.

The Pharisees, like Jesus, ate only clean meat. This was not what they were debating. It was never an issue for them.

It
Hand washing for the Pharisees was highly ritualistic, and they attempted to
force their beliefs on Jesus, but He rejected them.

1 Cor 3:16-17 tells us that we are the temple of God, and that God will destroy
those who defile the temple.

Eating unclean meat is no different than smoking or drinking to excess.

Isa 66:15-17 is a prophecy about the 2nd coming of Christ, and at that time
eating swine meat is still an abomination.

Read Rev 18:2 about unclean birds.

When God led Israel out of Egypt, after 430 years in captivity, He had to
reintroduce them to His laws. His laws had existed from the beginning and
Anyone who follows Him must submit to these laws. There is no difference
between Jews and Greeks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-11-2019 1:05 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-12-2019 5:35 PM candle2 has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 19 of 88 (846871)
01-12-2019 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by candle2
01-12-2019 11:29 AM


Augustine debates Manicheans over the Gospel of Matthew, Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 10
quote:

Some rely on Mark 7:18-19 to support their claim that Christians can now eat
unclean (contaminated, polluted, unhealthy) meat.
However, the issue in Mark 7 isn't about clean/unclean meat, but unwashed
hands.

It should be clear, to everyone with an open mind, that Mark 7 is about the
Purification of food by the body's digestive process, and it's elimination of
minor impurities as the result of unwashed hands.

The Pharisees, like Jesus, ate only clean meat. This was not what they were debating. It was never an issue for them.


This is an old debate. (though the 2 sides centered around different options, but at any rate they are not much debated today)

(I do think that "Mark", or later additions to "Mark" by editors, meant that all food - meat - was allowed to be eaten. The context makes that interpretation pretty certain. It is all CLEAN. Jesus, the man, however was simply opposing certain TRADITIONS about purification. I don't think Jesus ate meat at all - after some point in his life. His brother, James, seems to have been a pre-Christian Nazarene, and they did not eat meat.)

Paul said that the clean/unclean issue isn't the basis for the requirement to totally stop eating meat. See Romans 14.

I say this is an old debate, because we actually have texts that cover arguments from 1600 years ago.

Augustine's untranslated texts (into English) are finally being translated. He responded to a late 3rd/early 4th century Manichean, Adimantus. That was just now translated, and can only be found in one place (nowhere online, but I will quote from it). I believe he also covered these issues against the Manichean Fortunatum or Fortunatus( also difficult to find in English), but I forget.

The debate doesn't really exist today.

But in the early centuries (and to some extent, into the 13th to 14 century with the Cathars 1st millennium boom in Europe), the debate was between the Roman Catholic position (kill and eat anything, any way you can) and the Jewish Christian position (total vegetarianism). I am unaware of any Christian position, in the debates, that allowed (for example) cow meat but did not allow pig meat.

quote:

It
Hand washing for the Pharisees was highly ritualistic, and they attempted to
force their beliefs on Jesus, but He rejected them.

1 Cor 3:16-17 tells us that we are the temple of God, and that God will destroy
those who defile the temple.

Eating unclean meat is no different than smoking or drinking to excess.

Isa 66:15-17 is a prophecy about the 2nd coming of Christ, and at that time
eating swine meat is still an abomination.

Read Rev 18:2 about unclean birds.

When God led Israel out of Egypt, after 430 years in captivity, He had to
reintroduce them to His laws. His laws had existed from the beginning and
Anyone who follows Him must submit to these laws. There is no difference
between Jews and Greeks.


Chapter 65 ends here in verse 25

quote:

25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock:
and dust shall be the serpent's meat.
They shall not hurt nor destroy
in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord.


Pig meat might not be so different from cow flesh.

See chapter 66.

Verse 3.

quote:

3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man;
he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck;
he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood;
he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol.
Yea, they have chosen their own ways,
and their soul delighteth in their abominations.


There were 2 positions:

The Roman Catholic position (which you seem to roughly identify with when you say "Eating unclean meat is no different than smoking or drinking to excess" though there might be a slight variation in your view)

The early century Jewish Christian position (total vegetarianism as a grave moral issue)

Where to find the Jewish Christian voice from antiquity is very tough. The closest (only?) way is to see Augustine's response to Manicheans (an early-mid 3rd century Gnostic offshoot of a Jewish Christian group that began around 100-116 A.D.). But Augustine didn't exactly quote and respond to the best arguments, plus he twisted many,while ignoring many more arguments.

His works are the best we have for debates however.

Some have only NOW been translated into English.

Like:

contra Adminantum, Manichaei discipulum

Answer to Adimantus, a disciple of Mani

In the new book, "The Manichean Debate, Volume 1; Volume 19"

(I did not know, a while back, that there were no translations of certain Augustine texts that were not public domain, until I noticed that I was reading a google book that had Augustine quotations which I was unfamiliar with. I scrambled around looking for an answer until I read reviews that explained that these are translations of never-translated Augustine texts)

From the introduction:

quote:

p.163

Introduction

Augustine tells us that, while he was still a priest, there came into his hands a work of Adimantus, who was a disciple of Mani. There is no reason not to take Augustine's use of the word "disciple" in the strict sense. Hence, Adimantus would most probably have been one of the twelve immediate disciples of Mani, the one whom Faustus of Milevis called "most learned" and "a man who should alone be studied after out blessed father, Mani". In his Answer to an Enemy of the Law and the Prophets Augustine tells us that Adimantus had the first name Addas. He was sent by Mani to Egypt to preach the Manichean religion, and from there it seems that his writing made its way to Augustine in Hippo Regius.

Deuteronomy had permitted people to kill animals and to eat them according to the desire of their hearts. Adimantus claimed that the gospel and the apostle Paul were opposed to this. Augustine states that Deuteronomy was not permitting the Jewish people to eat to the point of overindulgence. Adimantus quoted the apostle's words about not eating meat and drinking wine. Augustine accuses him of tking a single verse out of its context and quotes all of Romans 14. For the apostles did not, like the Manicheans, think that meat and wine were unclean but clearly stated that all foods were clean, though he advocated abstinence in order to control concupiscence and to avoid giving scandal to a weaker brother.

Augustine is puzzled that Adimantus opposed the apostle's words about not partaking of the table of the Lord and the table of demons to the passage in Deuteronomy about killing and eating animals, since the later passage had nothing to do with sacrifices. He again quotes at length from the apostle, this time from the First Letter to the Corinthians, to show that Paul was speaking of meat offered to idols. Finally, he explains that the animals that were called unclean in the Old Testament could symbolize various kinds of unclean or sinful human beings (chapter 14).

Adimantus found that the prohibition in Leviticus against eating various unclean animals was contrary to the words of Jesus, that nothing entering a man's mouth defiled him. Auguistine expresses his amazement that Adimantus would use these words of Jesus immediately after having claimed that meant and wine were unclean. Then Augustine argues that the unclean animals which the Jewish people were forbidden to eat symbolize the sorts of human conduct that the Church rejects as unclean and are not absorbed into her body. Adimantus claimed that Jesus had said to the crowds that nothing that entered a man's mouth defiled him, but that he forbade his disciples to eat meat...


The text of Augustine starts on p. 174 of the work.

quote:

Revisions I, 22 (21)

P.174

Answer to Adimantus, a Disciple of Mani

1. At the same time there came into my hands certain Discussions of Adimantus, who had been a disciple of Mani. He composed these Discussions against the law and the prophets, having tried to show that the gospel and the apostolic writings were as it were contrary to them. I replied to him, citing his words and giving my response. I completed the work in one volume, and in it I replied to certain questions not once but twice, because my first response had been lost and was then found after I had replied the second time. To be sure, I resolved some of the same questions in sermons addressed to the people of the Church. I have still not replied to others. Some remained that were passed over because of other more urgent matters as well as thoughtfulness.

….

p.190-194

On the words that one should not eat blood because blood is the soul of the flesh. The Manicheans oppose this statement of the old law the statement of the Lord in the gospel that we should not fear those who kill the body but cannot harm the soul. And they argue, saying, “If blood is the soul, how can people fail to have power over it, since they do many things with blood, whether collecting it an setting before dogs and birds as food or spilling it and mixing it with filth and mud?” After all, people can without difficulty do these and countless other things with blood. And so they ask insultingly how, if blood is the soul, a person's killer cannot harm the soul since he has such great power over the person's blood. They also add the words of the apostle Paul, For flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God ( I Cor 15:50), and they say, “If blood is the soul, as Moses says, no soul will be found to attain the kingdom of God.”

To this slander the response ought to obliged to show where it is written in the books of the old law that the human soul is blood. For they will nowhere find this in that scripture, which those wretches will never be permitted to understand as long as they try to tear it to shreds. But if nothing of the sort is said there about the human soul, why does it matter to us if the soul of an animal either can be slain by a killer of cannot possess the kingdom of God? But these men are too concerned about the souls of animals. For, though the souls of human beings are rational, these people still think that those souls return in animals. For this reason they think that the heavenly kingdoms have been closed to them if they agree that they have been closed to the soul of animals.

12,2. Why is it that Adimantus, one of the disciples of Mani, whom they mention as a great teacher of that sect, has dared to insult the people of the Jews, then, because according to their idea that the soul is blood, the souls of their parents have partly been devoured by serpents, partly consumed by fire, and partly dried up in deserts and on the most rugged mountains. But even if anyone granted that this was true, he would not prove that those whom he chose to insult were guilty of any crime. For they did not in some way harm the souls of their parents, to which he said all this happens in accord with their idea. Hence, they feel grief over this, but not guilt.

But what will Adimantus himself do in keeping with his own opinion, according to which he believed that even rational souls, that is, the souls of human beings, can be stuffed into the bodies of wild animals? What, then, will he do about the great crime of wearing down a slow beast with blows or an excited one with reins, if his father's soul should happen to be in it? I do not want to mention that he could kill his parents in the midst of lice and fleas, for they do not refrain from the slaying of these. What good does it do them, after all, that they sometimes deny that human souls return in these very tiny living things? For they deny this so that they will not be held guilty of so many killings or be forced to spare lice and fleas and bedbugs and to endure such annoyances from them without any freedom to kill them! After all, they have a lot to explain as to why a human soul can return in a little fox and cannot return in a weasel, though the cub of the little fox is perhaps even smaller than a large weasel. Then, if it can return in a weasel, why can it not return in a mouse? And if it can return in a mouse, why can it not return in a lizard? And if it can return in a lizard, why can it not return in a locust? Then in a bee, then in a fly, then in a bedbug, and finally even in flea or in anything else that might be much smaller. They do not find anywhere to set a limit, and in this way their consciences are overwhelmed by countless crimes of murder on behalf of this silly belief.

12,3. For from the words of scripture that the blood of an animal is its soul, apart from what I said above, namely, that it is no concern of mine what happens to the soul of an animal, I can also interpret the commandment as a sign that was given. After all, the Lord did not hesitate to say, This is my body (Mt 26:26), when he gave us a sign of his body.

12,4. But as for the words of the apostle, Flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God, it is also stated in the law: My spirit will not remain in them because they are flesh (Gn 6:3). And in the old books a future reward is promised many times to the souls of the righteous. But the apostle nonetheless wanted to convey what sort of body the righteous will have as a result of the change in the resurrection, because they will not marry or take wives, but they will be like the angels in heaven (Mt 22:30). Since he wanted to convey this future change of the bodies of the saints, then, the apostle said, For I say to you, brothers, that flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God. This can be discovered not from one statement that has been singled out and quoted in order to deceive but from the study of the whole letter, or rather from just reading it, for the matter is not obscure.

For in this sense, he says, This corruptibility must don incorruptibility, and this mortality must don immortality (1 Cor 15:53). That he says this of the body is very evident from what went before, when he says, Not all flesh is the same; the flesh of human beings is other than that of animals; the flesh of birds and of fish is also different. And there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of heavenly bodies is other than the glory of earthly ones. The glory of the sun is other than the glory of the moon and other than the glory of the stars. For star differs from star in glory. So too will be the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption; it will rise in incorruption. It is sown in ignominy; it will rise in glory. It is sown in weakness: it will rise in power. An animal body is sown; a spiritual body will rise. If the body is animal, it is also spiritual, as scripture says, The first man, Adam, became a living soul; the last Adam will become a life-giving spirit. But what is spiritual is not first, but what is animal; what is spiritual comes afterward. The first man is earthly from the earth; the second man is heavenly from heaven. The earthly are like the earthly man; the heavenly are like the heavenly man. And as we have donned the image of the earthly man, let us also don the image of him who is from heaven. But I say this, my brothers, because flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God as their inheritance nor can corruption possess incorruption as its inheritance (I Cor 15:39-50). Surely it is already clear why the apostle said this. Why, then, does this fellow out of a shameful deceit cite only this last verse and pass over in silence the previous ones, by which people could correctly understand what the Manicheans misinterpret? For, because the body of the Lord was raised up to heaven after the resurrection in order to receive a heavenly transformation for that heavenly dwelling, and because we are commanded to hope for this also on the last day, the apostle said, The earthly are like the earthly man, that is, mortal, and the heavenly are like the heavenly man, that is, immortal not only in their souls but also in their bodies. Hence, he had also said above that the glory of heavenly bodies is other than the glory of earthly ones. But the fact that he said that the body will be spiritual in the resurrection should not lead us to think that it will not be a body but a spirit. Rather, he says that the body will be subject in every way to the spirit without any corruption or death. After all, we ought not to think that the body we now have is not a body but a soul because he refers to the body as animal. Therefore, just as it is now said to be an animal body because it is subject to the soul but cannoy yet be called spiritual because it is not yet fully subject to the spirit as long as it can suffer corruption, so it will then be called spiritual when it will be unable to resist the spirit and eternity because of some corruption.

12,5. Or is it still seems insufficiently proven that the apostle made this statement on account of the change that lies ahead, when he said, Flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God as an inheritance, nor will corruption possess incorruption as an inheritance (1 Cor 15:50), pay attention to what he immediately adds: see, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed arise, but we shall not all be changed, in an instant, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will rise incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (I Cor 15:51-52) Then he goes on to say what I quoted a little before to show the sort of change this will be. Indeed, he immediately says, For it is necessary that this corruptible body put on incorruptibility and that this mortal body put on immortality ( I Cor 15:53). From this, then, you see that flesh and blood will not possess the kingdom of God because, when it dons incorruptibility and immortality, it will no longer be flesh and blood but will be changed into a human body. We have taken the opportunity to comment on this, because the Manicheans also attack this statement very much, since they deny the resurrection of the body. Fore the present question was not posed concerning the body but concerning the soul, which they think is understood in the law in such a way that it is thought to be blood, though we do not understand it in that way at all. But though we are not concerned about the souls of animals, with which we do not share reason, we still say that what the law says – namely that blood should be poured out and not taken as food because the blood is the soul – was stated there as a sign, like many other things And almost all the sacraments of those scriptures are full of figures and signs of the future proclamation that has now been revealed through our Lore Jesus Christ.

P.200-203

Let the Manicheans pay attention to this and see how it was said in Deuteronomy: Kill according to the desire of your soul, and eat every sort of meat in accord with the pleasure that the Lord has given you. After all, the fact that the Jews were given a commandment about not eating certain meats that are called unclean can signify unclean human beings who were represented in the old scriptures by symbols. For, just as that ox whose mouth scripture forbids us to muzzle when it is grinding wheat signifies the evangelist, as the apostle explains with perfect clarity, so those foods that were forbidden signify certain forms of uncleaness on the part of human beings, which are not admitted into the society of the body of Christ, that is, into the solid and everlasting Church. For it is as plain as can be that, with regard to food, absolutely nothing is unclean, but it is bad for a person who eats something and causes scandal.

15, 1. On the words in Leviticus: Separate the unclean from the clean, and let no one eat the meat of a camel, a donkey, a rabbit, a pig, an eagle, a falcon, a crow, a vulture, and so forth. Nowhere can the soul of this man, who raises as objections passages from the two Testaments as if they were opposed and contrary to each other, be more clearly proved to be utterly full of deceit and fraud than in this passage, where he mentioned that one should abstain from the meats of some animals.For he believed that he should set over against this idea the passage in the gospel where the Lord says, Nothing that enters into a man makes him unclean, but the things that come out of him make him unclean (Mt 15:11). If he did this in ignorance, there is nothing more blind, but if he did it knowingly, there is nothing more wicked. Had he himself not a little before quoted the testimony of the apostle who said, It is good, my brothers, not to eat meat or to drink wine (Rom 14:21), when he wanted something from the New Testament to opposes the Old, where it said, Kill according to the desire of your soul, and eat every sort of meat (Dt 12:15)? How, then, is he now pleased at the statement of the Lord where he says that there is nothing that enters into a man that makes him unclean but that the things that come out of a man make him unclean? Where will he hide from this statement? Where will he flee? Let him tell me. For, out of a perverse and superstitious pretense at abstinence, he commands people to flee from the uncleanness of meat and to separate it from the foods of the holy. Surely, after all, if it is true that the things that enter into a man do not make him unclean, the Manicheans make a big mistake when they say that people eat unclean foods when they eat meat. But if such foods are unclean, what will they do about this testimony drawn from evangelical and divine authority, where the Lord says that a man is not made unclean by the things that enter into him but by those that come out of him? And will they perhaps say, as they are accustomed to say when the authority of the scriptures puts pressure on them, that this passage was inserted into the gospel by those who corrupted the scriptures? Why, the, does Adimantus use this chapter as an authority and try to attack the Old Testament from a source by which he himself is knocked down? For any Catholic Christian, who reverences and understands both scriptures, will reply to him that these Testaments are not opposed, because the passages concerning the meat of certain animals, which God commanded a people who were still carnal not to eat, were put there to signify human conduct that the Church, which is the body of the Lord, cannot accept into the solid and everlasting bond of its unity. For she rejects them like unclean food and does not absorb them into her innermost parts.

Thus all those commandments imposed upon a carnal people foretold the future discipline of a spiritual people and, for this reason, do not contradict the statement of the Lord in which he says with complete truth that a man is not made unclean by the things that enter into him. For those words impose burdens upon slaves, while these words shake the yoke of slavery from those who are now free.Nonetheless, those words were uttered so that the burdens borne by slaves would foretell the faith of a free people. For, as the apostle says, all these things happened to them as symbols on account of us, upon whom the end of the ages has come (I Cor 10:11). If, therefore, the things that they endured happened symbolically, they accepted symbolically what they were commanded.

15, 2. When, therefore, I give these answers and show in this way that these two passages from the individual Testaments are not contradictory once they are compared, what is this fellow going to do?

....

Peter said to him in reply, Explain this parable to us (Mt. 15:15). And showing most clearly that it was not a parable but plain language, he said to them, Are you still without understanding? Do you not understand that everything that enters the mouth goes to the belly and is passed to the toilet? But what comes out of the mouth comes from the heart, an those things make a man unclean. For from the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimony, and blasphemies. These are what make a man unclean. To eat without washing one's hands does not make a man unclean. (Mt 15:16-20)

The Jews raised the question about unwashed hands, and the Lord used that as an occasion to make a general statement about the things that enter the mouth and go to the belly and are passed into the toilet, that is, about our food.

....

15,3. Perhaps one of them might say: "Explain to us, then, what is signified by the meat of a pig, a camel, a rabbit, a hawk, a crow and the others, from which the law commanded us to abstain." I do not want to, because it would take too long. But I suppose that I cannot. Does it follow then that no one can? And there are already countless volumes in which these things are explained. To refute these people it is enough for us that not I but the apostle says that those observances are a foreshadowing of what was to come.


Of the 4 European Gospels, Matthew was the Gospel that had the most authority to the Jewish Christians.

(Mark had zero authority among the Jewish Christians, and the Gospel of John had absolutely no authority, though Manicheans , as Gnostics, might not have opposed it so much, many Gnostics loved it)

But there was a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, which had a high authority.

But, as to the ancient debates, this is as close as I can come to an actual debate.

Putting aside the inheritance of Jewish-Christian vegetarianism,it seems that Manicheans saw the spiritual (no eating meat!) as something to practice IN THE FLESH. Not just now, but RIGHT NOW. (not that any Manicheans are around anymore). Augustine paid lip service to being "spiritual" as opposed to "carnal", but it wasn't much more than empty wordsmithing IMO. Augustine could say Paul opposed eating meat only to avoid "scandal", and Augustine would indeed claim to be faithful to Paul, but it still did not stop him from making fun of Manicheans fearing their dead relative's souls were in the bodies of slaughtered animals. And it did certainly did not stop Augustine from killing the animals. The same Augustine that loved to steal from his parents "larder" as a child.

(Nice to see that the early 5th century still had some actual debate though. By the time Augustine died, during the 431 siege of Carthage by the Goths, the diversity was quickly being exterminated, despite the coming Gothic tolerance)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by candle2, posted 01-12-2019 11:29 AM candle2 has not yet responded

    
candle2
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 20 of 88 (846898)
01-13-2019 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by LamarkNewAge
01-11-2019 12:32 AM


Re: Mark chapter 7 is not the same as Matthew chapter 15 in an important respect.
Sorry to respond to this post instead of your second post but this is shorter, and
I do not know how to bracket. In any event, I am replying to Romans 14.

The theme(s) here is twofold. One is fasting; the other is food associated with
Idol worship, which was wide widespread

As for fasting, Paul made it clear that it had to be voluntary, and which day or days one fasted on was unimportant. Some would eating only certain foods
While fasting, others practiced total abstinance.

Also, Paul points out that otherwise clean meat (meat that was designed for
human consumption), even though associated with idol worship, does not make
it intrinsically unfit to eat.

Paul was not discussing Biblical dietary laws. This matter had long been settled
by God

In both verses 14 & 20, the word food or meat isn't in the original wording. No
Specific object is mentioned relative to cleanness or uncleanness.

The sense is that nothing is unclean ( koinos) common or ceremonially defiled
of itself

There is also no doubt that Mark 7 is about " hand washing." Read vs. 2-5.

This is God's take on it:

Some animals are clean and fit, designed for human consumption.
Some animals are contaminated/polluted, not for human consumption.
Therefore, not all animals are to be eaten be humans

Many human cannot keep this simple fact straight in their minds.

For them it is:

Some animals are clean and fit, designed for human consumption.
Some animals are contaminated/polluted, not for human consumption
Therefore,all animals are fit for humans to eat.

I did not read your entire post. My new residence does not have internet service,
And this little phone and my eyes make it difficult.

I will respond to any posts as long as they are somewhat brief
I


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-11-2019 12:32 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-13-2019 8:06 PM candle2 has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 21 of 88 (846942)
01-13-2019 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by candle2
01-13-2019 10:14 AM


Romans 14
You might want to quote the entire chapter of Romans 14, and comment on the text as you go.

(also note that the point goes a bit into chapter 15)

Paul did say that he is convinced by Jesus that nothing is clean or unclean in itself. (14:14? I am going by memory)

The Manicheans were an offshoot of Jewish Christians (Elkesaites to be specific), and Paul was generally disliked by Jewish Christians, but the (Egyptian) Mani Codex has (Greek) Manichean text, which seems to be based on the the words of Mani (?), that very much indicates a lot of gratitude towards the apostle Paul.

Manicheans were familiar with Paul and respected him very much.

Manicheans saw (what we now divide up as Romans "14") Romans 14 as being about straight vegetarianism.

I don't know how much time Jewish Christians (Nazarenes, Nazoreans, Ebionites, Elkesaites, etc.) spent exegeting Paul, as there aren't really the texts available to enlighten the situation. The closest hint is in the texts of Jerome, who himself spent time in Palestine and he did read texts from the Hebrew libraries of the Nazarenes.

Jerome, like the Manicheans, also quoted Romans 14:21 to support vegetarianism as a requirement of Christians, though I feel the entire chapter needs to be quoted to see the point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by candle2, posted 01-13-2019 10:14 AM candle2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by candle2, posted 01-14-2019 2:40 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 22 of 88 (846949)
01-13-2019 8:55 PM


KREAS is a rarely used word by Paul (Roman 14:21, 1 Cor 8:13 only)
Romans 14:21 is the verse that was used by Manicheans, which we are aware of thanks to Augustine's attempt to shred the religion he abandoned (to save his life in the Roman Empire).

https://biblehub.com/greek/2907.htm

quote:

Strong's Concordance
kreas: flesh
Original Word: κρέας, έως, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: kreas
Phonetic Spelling: (kreh'-as)
Definition: flesh
Usage: flesh; plur: pieces of flesh, kinds of flesh.

....

Englishman's Concordance
Romans 14:21 N-ANP
GRK: μὴ φαγεῖν κρέα μηδὲ πιεῖν

NAS: It is good not to eat meat or to drink
KJV: neither to eat flesh, nor to drink
INT: not to eat meat nor drink

1 Corinthians 8:13 N-ANP
GRK: μὴ φάγω κρέα εἰς τὸν

NAS: eat meat again, so
KJV: no flesh while the world standeth,
INT: not should I eat meat to the

Strong's Greek 2907
2 Occurrences

κρέα — 2 Occ.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2907: κρέας

κρέας, τό (cf. Latincaro, cruor; Curtius, § 74), plural κρέα (cf. Winers Grammar, 65 (63); (Buttmann, 15 (13))); (from Homer down); the Sept. very often for בָּשָׂר; (the) flesh (of a sacrificed animal): Romans 14:21; 1 Corinthians 8:13.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
flesh, meat
Perhaps a primary word; (butcher's) meat -- flesh.

Forms and Transliterations
κρεα κρέα κρέας κρέατα κρεών krea kréa


Hebrew BaSaR is often translated, in the Septuagint, using this word Paul rarely used.

But understand this important point:

The Roman Catholic sweep (under the rug) is all we have, tradition wise, when it comes to giving Paul's specific words their due weight.

Manicheans (also known, ironically enough, as Kathars, to their contemporary Roman Catholic Europeans in the 11th to 14th centuries THOUGH CATHARS SEEM TO BE A DIFFERENT ANCIENT GROUP) left no interpretive traditions that had any extant mark in "Christianity" - as we have known it for the last 500-700 years.

(Ethiopian Christians aside, the only traditional restrictions on meat among "Christians" will be the Lent practices)

But Paul's words are still there (is there any THERE there for 21st century Christians to notice?).

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by candle2, posted 01-14-2019 4:15 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
candle2
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 23 of 88 (846980)
01-14-2019 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by LamarkNewAge
01-13-2019 8:06 PM


Re: Romans 14
In your support for eating contaminated/polluted meat, you are using the
same basic verses and philosophy that I used for several decades.

Even when I became absolutely (beyond a shadow of doubt) convinced that
eating scavengers was a sin, it took me a good while to give them up.

Today, those of us who won't eat pork or other continated meat are lucky.
My wife cooks turkey ham, and several have stated that it is as good as any
ham they have had.

Also excellent is turkey bacon; turkey balogna; turkey spam; and, turkey sausage.

The reason God forbids those He loves (and he loves us all) is that scavengers
omnivores, carnivores, creeping things, and animals of prey are highlyd contaminated and toxic.

These animals are no different today than they were then.

Just as some vegetation was not designed for human consumption,
the same goes for animals.

I've heard some say that now we are living under grace, which frees us from the
dietary laws. However, there' s not one single case in the OT where someone earned eternal life. It has always been a matter of God's grace.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-13-2019 8:06 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-14-2019 9:59 PM candle2 has not yet responded

    
candle2
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 24 of 88 (846983)
01-14-2019 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by LamarkNewAge
01-13-2019 8:55 PM


Re: KREAS is a rarely used word by Paul (Roman 14:21, 1 Cor 8:13 only)
Unclean animals have there place in the world, but it's not on the dinner plate.

Hogs and other scavengers we're designed to clean our environment. in
Philadelphia pigs have eaten the city's garbage and sewage for more than a
century, saving the city millions every year.

Some breeders regularly feed their hogs raw sewage. And, when hogs are
stacked in cages, piglets in the bottom cages thrive on offal from hogs in the
top cages.

Chicken farmers often keep hogs in order to dispose of dead chickens.

New golf courses under construction oftentimes use hogs to root out and eat
poisonous snakes.

Swine have so much toxins in their bodies that a way is needed to get rid of it.
Their digestive system is nowhere adequate for this task.

Hogs have ducts under their hooves that are utilized to ooze poisons from their
bodies. Sometimes these ducts ( called nursing sores) become plugged. When
this happens breeders must kill the animals and qquickl. All of this toxin is then
sold to consumers in pork meat.

Shellfish and other scavengers are no better for us. Eating bottom-dwellers and
animals of prey are no more healthy than vultures, bats, and other filthy scavengers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-13-2019 8:55 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-14-2019 10:24 PM candle2 has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-15-2019 8:27 AM candle2 has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 25 of 88 (846996)
01-14-2019 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by candle2
01-14-2019 2:40 PM


Re: Romans 14
quote:

In your support for eating contaminated/polluted meat, you are using the
same basic verses and philosophy that I used for several decades.

Even when I became absolutely (beyond a shadow of doubt) convinced that
eating scavengers was a sin, it took me a good while to give them up.


I was saying that Mark 7:19 was supportive of that.

(Today's extant Greek text Matthew) Matthew 15 was not.

(Both were Greek/Roman authored texts, and did not represent the circle of Jesus)

(I feel the evidence leans in the direction which SUGGESTS the early - as in post-Easter - Christians were vegetarian, and also never ate pork)

I also see this modern day "scavenger" projection as having ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with any ancient debates (so far as I know, the issue of pigs and parasites is a modern European Christian imposition on the Biblical text of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14), and it really has no Biblical place in this discussion (except for the problem that people somehow keep bringing it up)

You are getting ahead of yourself by the way (by the way = "btw").

quote:

Today, those of us who won't eat pork or other continated meat are lucky.
My wife cooks turkey ham, and several have stated that it is as good as any
ham they have had.

Also excellent is turkey bacon; turkey balogna; turkey spam; and, turkey sausage.


Aside from fish, most people in the early Christian world never could afford (or find a way) to eat any of these meats.

However, rich Christians like Augustine sure loved all meats, and dug right in.

AND DO NOTE:

"Continated" is not a Biblical concept.

You are regurgitating a very modern concept when it comes to taboo meat.

The Augustine debate with Adimantus shows that the early Christian concern (among the Jewish Christians) was concern for animals lives and (gasp) "souls", which the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics didn't care one wit about. The European mutation of the Jesus religion will only allow modern day projections to be the debate, but take note of the actual ancient debate which had the Jewish Christian position on the one hand (concern for animal's lives), and the Roman Empire "Christianity" (granted it had earlier pre-Constantine precedents for sure) on the other.

quote:

The reason God forbids those He loves (and he loves us all) is that scavengers
omnivores, carnivores, creeping things, and animals of prey are highlyd contaminated and toxic.

These animals are no different today than they were then.


There is nothing in your above comment that has anything to do with the views of Jesus and Paul back "then".

There is nothing in your above comments that has anything to do with the Israelites who wrote Leviticus and Deuteronomy (or Isaiah 65, Is. 66., etc.) back "then".

"Scavengers" and "contaminated" (with parasites) and "toxic" simply did were not a part of the ancient people's consciousness.

Jerome (the guy who authored the 382 Vulgate, which was essentially the canon before the 397 Council of Carthage) felt it was a sin to eat meat, but he also recommended Christians avoid vegetables that made people fart - like broccoli and related vegetables, though the latter wasn't a sin issue.

quote:

Just as some vegetation was not designed for human consumption,
the same goes for animals.

I've heard some say that now we are living under grace, which frees us from the
dietary laws. However, there' s not one single case in the OT where someone earned eternal life. It has always been a matter of God's grace.


To you, not being "designed for human consumption" meant something totally different from the Israelite authors of the Torah, as well as the later Jewish Christians.

Where is "eternal life" mentioned in the Old Testament? Show me 2 places.

And Christian documents say different things about what is allowed to be eaten.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by candle2, posted 01-14-2019 2:40 PM candle2 has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 26 of 88 (846997)
01-14-2019 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by candle2
01-14-2019 4:15 PM


Re: KREAS is a rarely used word by Paul (Roman 14:21, 1 Cor 8:13 only)
quote:

Unclean animals have there place in the world, but it's not on the dinner plate.

....

New golf courses under construction oftentimes use hogs to root out and eat
poisonous snakes.

Swine have so much toxins in their bodies that a way is needed to get rid of it.
Their digestive system is nowhere adequate for this task.


So, did you do a google search to investigate the position of Jerome and the Manicheans on Romans 14:21?

Jerome did say "poison of the flesh", but he did not mean it in the way you are (projecting) saying.

(try to apply your comments to the actual Romans 14:21 KREAS issue if you are not)

But, let us put aside the early Christian views, and look at the Law of Moses, or the Torah.

Tuna and Salmon eat other fish, and they are loaded with mercury (relative to sardines and anchovies which are forage fishes and essentially eat plant life).

They are large fish, and that seems to play a role.

(Many Tuna are high in mercury, and there is a growing awareness of the risks of these fish, though they used to be describes as lower mercury type of fish compared to Sharks and Swordfish).

But Tuna ans Sardines are both "clean", according to the old Law of Moses.

Explain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by candle2, posted 01-14-2019 4:15 PM candle2 has not yet responded

    
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12810
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 27 of 88 (847002)
01-15-2019 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by candle2
01-14-2019 4:15 PM


What Would Jesus Declare In 2019?
The issue goes far deeper than what Jesus declared. It goes to the very heart of social interaction. It is not simply clean vs unclean. It is globalists vs nationalists. It is the US vs the World. It was the insiders(Jews) vs the outsiders(gentiles) back then, and it is now more than pigs and shellfish vs organic.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by candle2, posted 01-14-2019 4:15 PM candle2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by candle2, posted 01-17-2019 9:22 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 28 of 88 (847063)
01-17-2019 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Thugpreacha
01-15-2019 8:27 AM


Re: What Would Jesus Declare In 2019?
This life isn't a popularity contest. What the world thinks about God's dietary
laws is worthless. God's word is the only thing that matters. He has ordered us
(His followers) not to eat contaminated/polluted meat.

Romans 12:1 tells us to present our body as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable. Disobeying God is not holy.

Verse 2 commands us not to conform to the world. Our behavior is not to be determined by what the world thinks

When we believe God (not only believe in, but believe His words) He will continue to show us more and more of His truths

This is a different topic, but by believing God, I now understand that the Bible clearly teaches that Christ was dead and entombed for 72 hours And, that He came out of the tomb very late on the 7th day Sabbath.

When one refuses to believe God, God will no longer teach that individual His truths


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-15-2019 8:27 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 01-17-2019 10:49 AM candle2 has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17297
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 29 of 88 (847069)
01-17-2019 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by candle2
01-17-2019 9:22 AM


Re: What Would Jesus Declare In 2019?
candle2 writes:

What the world thinks about God's dietary
laws is worthless. God's word is the only thing that matters. He has ordered us
(His followers) not to eat contaminated/polluted meat.


We know far more about contaminated meat today than the writers of the Bible ever knew. Following arbitrary species-by-species rules is just silly.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by candle2, posted 01-17-2019 9:22 AM candle2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by candle2, posted 01-17-2019 12:17 PM ringo has responded

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 30 of 88 (847071)
01-17-2019 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by ringo
01-17-2019 10:49 AM


Re: What Would Jesus Declare In 2019?
At least you admit that the meat mentioned is contaminated. While you have aitted this much, just go ahead and state the obvious: contaminated meat is contaminated meat regardless of the date on the calendar?

Archaeology has revealed that sophisticated ovens and cooking devices we're
common during Biblical timess. They could cook meat as well as we can now. Also, they u/s the importance of thoroughly cooking meat.

When one eats contaminated .meat he is eating everything that that animal has eaten. When one eats shrimp he eats the intestines and digestive tract as well.

Cooking poisons won't render poisons harmless. A little common sense can go a long ways here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 01-17-2019 10:49 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 01-17-2019 12:29 PM candle2 has not yet responded
 Message 32 by Tangle, posted 01-17-2019 12:56 PM candle2 has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019