Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 163

Thread: Are Christians Permitted to Eat Unclean Animals?

  1. #31
    tWebber NorrinRadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Wayne Township, PA
    Faith
    Full Gospel Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,919
    Amen (Given)
    2819
    Amen (Received)
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by Soyeong View Post
    Hello, I was having a conversation with Sparko on FB about the thread topic and he suggested that I bring it here. Everyone is welcome to comment, though I will copy a few posts for reference:

    Acts 10:14-15 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.”

    It should be noted that Peter did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean, but also added that he had never eaten anything that was common. Furthermore, God only rebuked Peter for his use of the word "common" and not for his use of the word "unclean". In other words, Peter had correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and had correctly declined to eat them in obedience to God's commands in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, but he had incorrectly identified the clean animals as common and had incorrectly declined to eat them in disobedience to God's command to kill and eat. So Peter's vision had nothing to do with a change in the status is unclean animals, but rather he interpreted his vision three times as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles.
    1) The main point of the vision was not food, it was the fact that the Gospel was not reserved just for the Jews. It should not be the *first* place we look in discussing food laws. However, I do believe it is *a* relevant passage.

    2) In this context, it is more likely that "common" and "unclean" are virtual synonyms than distinctly separate categories. More to the point, in v. 15, God corrects Peter not in the way YOU are suggesting, but by reminding him the He had "made" certain things clean, the clear intent being that those things *were* at one time "unclean."

    Perhaps you would be right if Peter has just said that he had never eaten anything that was unclean or if God had told Peter not to call unclean what he had made clean, but Peter added that he had also never eaten anything that was common, and God only rebuked him for referring to something that was clean as being common. Yet you are ignoring what God actually rebuked him for doing and applying it to something else in order to do away with what God has commanded even though Peter interpreted his vision three times without even hinting at unclean animals now being permissible to eat.
    See above. I don't believe you are interpreting the passage correctly.

    Please either agree that it is immoral to disobey God or cite an example where disobedience to God was considered to be moral.
    This is a dishonest dumb-ass debating tactic, akin to "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

    It is not disobedience if the Law is no longer in effect.

    When the Israelites were in exile in Babylon, the condition for their return to the Law was to first return to obedience to God's Law, which required them to have access to a temple that they didn't have access to while they were in exile, so if there is a law that has conditions that aren't met, then it is not disobeying God to refrain from obeying what it instructs and is thus not immoral, but we should nevertheless be faithful to obey as much as we can obey.

    In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, God said that it is not too difficult to obey His Law and that obedience brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life!
    In Gal. 3:10, Paul directly alludes to the "curse" for disobedience promised in Deut. 27:26. He follows by asserting that Christ "redeemed us from the curse of the Law," and in light of the context and of other Pauline writings, there's a good chance this is a synecdoche meaning we are redeemed from the curse of having to live by the Law.

    If someone is not acting in accordance with what the Law instructs, then they can't be said to be be following the heart of the Law. In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus summarized the Law as being about how to love God and our neighbor, so all of the other laws hang on the greatest two because they are all examples of what it looks like to correctly obey them.
    I have occasionally heard Law-enthusiasts claim that "Love your neighbor as yourself" covered how we are to relate to each other, and "Love the Lord your God..." covered all the various and sundry other laws. That's an interesting notion, but I believe it misses the essence of the point Jesus was making.

    In any case, all three of the Synoptists include those "Two Great Commandments," albeit in somewhat different forms and contexts. Matthew says the Second is "like" the First, and some lexicons say the word (homoios) literally means "the same as." Luke actually combines the two into one. That is consistent with Paul in Rom. 13 and Gal. 5, both of which say that obeying the Commandment to love your neighbor as yourself is all that is needed to fulfill the whole Law.

    Further, both Matthew and Luke include the instruction to "treat others as you wish others to treat you." In Matthew, this is explicitly said to sum up the entire OT (Law and Prophets).

    In Romans 2:13, Paul said only the doers of the Law will be justified. In Romans 2:26, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to God's Law, which is the same way to tell for a Jew (Deuteronomy 10:12-16). In Romans 3:31, our faith does not do away without need to obey God's Law, but rather our faith upholds it.
    You are reversing Paul's point by your cherry-picking. The next chapter (Rom. 4) shows that the *way* faith upholds the Law is that the Law itself declared that Abraham was justified by *faith*, irrespective of "works."

    In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy and part of God's instructions for how to do that is to refrain from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45).
    This is, frankly, stupid mix-and-match Bible "study." Look to what 1 Peter itself says for what "holy conduct" means. Don't drag in the Obsolete Covenant unless Peter explicitly cited it. And if he did, you need to explain how and why he did it.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Nationalist.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

  2. #32
    tWebber NorrinRadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Wayne Township, PA
    Faith
    Full Gospel Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,919
    Amen (Given)
    2819
    Amen (Received)
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by Soyeong View Post
    Do you think that the correct way to interpret that verse is that Jesus was saying that we should rebel against what the Father has commanded? Did he not consider Leviticus and Deuteronomy to be Scripture?
    The "correct way to interpret that" is within the context. Mark was the one who quoted Jesus there, and Mark explained directly that in saying that, Jesus "declared all foods clean."

    Certainly Jesus considered Lev. and Deut. to be "Scripture." He also considered Himself to be I AM (John 8). As the One who revealed Himself and His memorial name to Moses at the burning bush, He had the authority to give the Law, and He had the authority to change or revoke it.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Nationalist.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

  3. #33
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    SoCal!!!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,755
    Amen (Given)
    293
    Amen (Received)
    639
    Quote Originally Posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    The "correct way to interpret that" is within the context. Mark was the one who quoted Jesus there, and Mark explained directly that in saying that, Jesus "declared all foods clean."

    Certainly Jesus considered Lev. and Deut. to be "Scripture." He also considered Himself to be I AM (John 8). As the One who revealed Himself and His memorial name to Moses at the burning bush, He had the authority to give the Law, and He had the authority to change or revoke it.
    I like this example of Jesus declaring all foods as clean. This is an 'editorial' statement about the implications from what Jesus said. Jesus was able to stay within the Law (in order to fulfill it) while also indicating that there was a change going on with respect to the Law.

  4. #34
    tWebber NorrinRadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Wayne Township, PA
    Faith
    Full Gospel Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,919
    Amen (Given)
    2819
    Amen (Received)
    732
    I apologize if I got a bit overheated in some of my comments. I have no reservations about that in general, but I don't know that it was justified in this thread so far.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Nationalist.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

  5. #35
    tWebber NorrinRadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Wayne Township, PA
    Faith
    Full Gospel Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,919
    Amen (Given)
    2819
    Amen (Received)
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by mikewhitney View Post
    I like this example of Jesus declaring all foods as clean. This is an 'editorial' statement about the implications from what Jesus said. Jesus was able to stay within the Law (in order to fulfill it) while also indicating that there was a change going on with respect to the Law.
    Right. That's one reason I do think it's reasonable to use the Acts 10 case in regard to foods, even though that's not the primary message. And it's also why I don't think the Acts 10 passage should be the first go-to. To me the Mark passage should come first, and then the Acts 10 passage can be taken as God reminding Peter of something he'd already been taught -- all foods are clean -- and using that to teach him something new by way of analogy.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Nationalist.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

  6. #36
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,940
    Amen (Given)
    4999
    Amen (Received)
    22170
    Quote Originally Posted by Soyeong View Post
    The way to do what is righteous or to avoid doing what is sinful is base on God's righteousness, not on a particular covenant, and God's righteousness is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to do what is righteous or to avoid doing what is sinful are eternally valid. Sin was in the world before the Law was given (Romans 5:13), so there was nothing that became righteous or sinful when the Mosaic Covenant was made or that ceased to be righteous or sinful after it has become obsolete. The existence of sin requires there to be a standard of what is and is not sin and that standard is God's Law, so Gentiles are either under God's Law and are obligated to refrain from sin, or are not under God's Law and have had no obligation to refrain from sin, have had no need for grace, and have had no need for Jesus to have given himself to redeem them from all Lawlessness.

    However, God is sovereign, so we are all under God's Law and obligated to refrain from sin, even those who aren't in a covenant relationship with Him, such as when God judged the world with the Flood for their sin or when He judged Sodom and Gomorrah for their Lawless deeds (2 Peter 2:6-8). The choice that we get to make is not whether or not we are under God's Law, but whether or not we are going to heed the Gospel message, repent of our sin, and obey God's Law.

    Even if God had never made any covenants with man, there there would still exist a way to walk in God's ways and express His character traits in accordance with His nature, which we should still follow. Likewise, even if God had made any covenants with man, followers of Christ should still seek by faith to follow the Law that he followed and spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey by word and by example.
    You are arguing moral values, and I agree, the moral values of God do not change and we are obligated to obey them. But dietary laws given to the Israelites were not moral laws. They were purity laws, meant to keep the Israelites separate from the surrounding tribes. There is nothing inherently immoral about eating pork, or mixing textiles. The same with the temple ceremonies and laws. We don't have to follow those either.

  7. #37
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,940
    Amen (Given)
    4999
    Amen (Received)
    22170
    Quote Originally Posted by Soyeong View Post
    1,050 commandments is nothing to what Pharisaism has.

    Here's a link to a list of the 1,050 NT commandments with Scriptural references:

    https://www.cai.org/bible-studies/10...ament-commands

    Jesus was sinless, so he had a zeal and a dedication to obeying God's Law that was in common with the Pharisees. They were the people that he spent the bulk of his ministry interacting with, so they were the people that he thought he could work with, and a number of them became his followers, such as with Nicodemus and Paul. He never criticized them for obeying God's Law, but he did criticize them for not obeying it correctly. For example, in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing dill, mint, and cumin was something that they should be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of the Law, so he was not coming against his Law, but rather he was fulfilling it by teaching how to correctly obey it.

    If you are interested in watching a lecture by an ex-Pharisees who talks about what Phariseeism is and what Messiah's problem was with it in order to better understand to historical and cultural context of the Bible, then I can recommend one to you.
    most of those are not laws at all, and we are talking about obeying the Mosaic Law and you are listing NT advice (not laws)?

    it contains stuff like:

    Five Things to Consider:

    The ravens (LUKE 12:24)
    The lilies (LUKE 12:27-28)
    Truth (2 TIMOTHY 2:7)
    That you are capable of falling (GALATIANS 6:1)
    Christ (HEBREWS 3:1; HEBREWS 12:3)

    Three Things to Continue in:

    Love (JOHN 15:9)
    Prayer (ROMANS 12:12; COLOSSIANS 4:2)
    Truth (2 TIMOTHY 3:14)

    ---
    You quote Romans 3:31 out of context but ignore the previous verses:

    21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

    27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

    Paul is saying that having Faith in Christ IS upholding the law. The spirit of the law. Not the letter of the law.

    You are basically denying Christ's sacrifice for you by trying to fulfill the law yourself. And you will fail.

  8. Amen One Bad Pig, Chrawnus, KingsGambit amen'd this post.
  9. #38
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    21,082
    Amen (Given)
    6209
    Amen (Received)
    11853
    Quote Originally Posted by Soyeong View Post
    1,050 commandments is nothing to what Pharisaism has.

    Here's a link to a list of the 1,050 NT commandments with Scriptural references:

    https://www.cai.org/bible-studies/10...ament-commands

    Jesus was sinless, so he had a zeal and a dedication to obeying God's Law that was in common with the Pharisees. They were the people that he spent the bulk of his ministry interacting with, so they were the people that he thought he could work with, and a number of them became his followers, such as with Nicodemus and Paul. He never criticized them for obeying God's Law, but he did criticize them for not obeying it correctly. For example, in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing dill, mint, and cumin was something that they should be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of the Law, so he was not coming against his Law, but rather he was fulfilling it by teaching how to correctly obey it.

    If you are interested in watching a lecture by an ex-Pharisees who talks about what Phariseeism is and what Messiah's problem was with it in order to better understand to historical and cultural context of the Bible, then I can recommend one to you.
    That list is an impressive exercise in missing the forest for the trees. Jesus himself distilled the Law into 2 commandments; you're making the mistake of equating examples with commands. Love God, love neighbor; all else is how to do so.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio

    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

  10. Amen Sparko, Chrawnus, Cow Poke amen'd this post.
  11. #39
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    55,376
    Amen (Given)
    12061
    Amen (Received)
    25743
    Quote Originally Posted by mikewhitney View Post
    Was Peter's vision showing that he can now eat Gentiles?
    Because they taste like chicken?
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  12. #40
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    55,376
    Amen (Given)
    12061
    Amen (Received)
    25743
    Quote Originally Posted by Soyeong View Post
    1,050 commandments is nothing to what Pharisaism has.

    Here's a link to a list of the 1,050 NT commandments with Scriptural references:

    https://www.cai.org/bible-studies/10...ament-commands...
    In a bit if irony, here's what I got when I checked out that site...

    wot.jpg
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  13. Amen NorrinRadd amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •