What does Paul mean, when he says

[Elijah John]

Romans 14.33

..for whatever is not of faith is sin.

What does this mean? Is everything a person does during the course of a day a matter of faith? Are mundane activities "of faith"? If not, are mundane things "sin"?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 47 by tam]

If they received holy spirit, then they were in Christ, yes?

Yep.

And if they were in Christ, then they were clean, yes?

Yep, and after God creates the new creature in Christ, they no longer sin. Eating garbage is a sin; it's "an abomination". It's right up there with sodomy, fornication, denying the Holy Spirit, etc.

Many versions say unclean food; but a more literal version says that they will eat unclean things. What do you suppose that means?

What are you referring to here? Please cite the passage you're referencing.

What is explicitly enjoined upon the church? That a person must fast (the not eating food kind of fast)? Where do you get that from?

Jesus himself says, "When you fast..."(Matt. 6:16) At the time it was as common as going to synagogue on the Sabbath. See what's going on here yet? It's assumed. It's a given. It's what healthy people do. It's what someone like Christ who is fulfilling the law of love does.

And where is the love in you daring someone to try a fast to see how the body reacts?

Where's the love in accusing someone of being unloving just because pointing out that eating garbage is not a good idea? More importantly, why do you think love is lost when someone points out that it can be proven simply by engaging in an activity that is inherently healthy, and one of the best ways to heal a sick body?

If a fast is for God, then should it be used as some sort of experiment?

The entire Old Testament was a "learn by doing" experiment. Those who followed God's laws received the blessings that were associated with each law. Those who didn't carry out the experiment learned that curses followed those experiments.

For example, gluttony results in numerous health problems while fasting keeps the body healthy. How do we know this? Because those who fast regularly tend to be quite healthy while those who are gluttons tend to be quite sick.

Under the New Testament the law is kept by faith instead of by an adherence to the law fortified exclusibly by one's own will and effort which is defenseless against the motions of sin within the body. The motions of sin rush headlong to death which is the natural result of sin.

Ironically, there are quite a few people who have discovered this the hard way by becoming so sick they were unable to eat anything, and this forced fast just before death actually enabled them to see what they were doing to their bodies. As their health improved through this unintentional fast, they also learned that their body was craving the same foods God intended them to eat from the beginning. What a coincidence! Go figure.

And if a person does have a pre-existing health condition, then your dare could result in harm coming to them, yes?

No. Where did I suggest that a person with a pre-existing health condition should do this? Are you now admitting that those who eat garbage are actually unhealthy? If it's not a problem, there's nothing to worry about, right? Then again, if one becomes ill, perhaps one ought to look into why this is happening in the first place, right?

Healthy people should not have any problem fasting. It's a great way to discover one's level of health. There are numerous examples of people who can't miss a single meal without undergoing extreme discomfort. These are not healthy people. The wonderful thing about fasting is that it provides a guage to one's health. An unhealthy person will only be able to fast so long before they have to stop fasting and resume their diet. An extremely healthy person can fast for upwards of a month with no harmful effects whatsoever. Most people who live in North America can't fast more than a week without releasing an astounding amount of toxins, preservatives, pesticides, etc into their system which are more than enough to kill them. If an economic collapse were to hit north America today, most people would not die from starvation. They would die from their own body's fat stores poisoning them to death.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 47 by tam]

Every day is a sabbath; a day to set aside ourselves and do the work that God gives us.

Sounds nice, but nonetheless unbiblical.

A person who does the work of God any/every day is indeed keeping the Sabbath, because for them every day is a Sabbath, every day is for God.

Still nowhere to be found anywhere in the bible. Now that I think about it though, it doesn't sound all that nice either. Sounds like what the Pharisees said concerning their inheritance. They donated it all to God and forgot about taking care of their parents.

Just as important is in noting that God points out that those who have become a new creation will keep his commandments as he ordained them to be kept. In this case, work six days, and rest on the seventh. Again, only those who God chooses will be able to do it as he intended. The rest will always do it the way they please, rather than to please God. For some reason people just don't seem to see what Jesus means when he points out that keeping human traditions nullifies God's commandments. A child can see that ignoring the Sabbath because of these nice sounding traditions still doesn't negate the fact that the commandments are being nullified.

The fact is that when God refers to work, he is referring to being gainfully employed in making money. Christ wasn't employed in making money doing God's work. The two are not equivalent or synonymous. The closest thing we have to that today is televangelism. Are you a televangelist? Those guys are working day and night seven days a week to spread the gospel, and as God promises "these things will be added unto you". If those things aren't being added, then perhaps it may be time to proclaim the gospel, right?

Don't you know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit in you, which you have of God, and you are not your own? 1 Corinthians 6:19

Paul often used one thing as an example demonstrating the spiritual truth,

Sure, but your straw man argument doesn't negate the fact that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit IN YOU, which you have of God, and you are not your own. It's a popular delusion, and grammaticaly incorrect as well. Spiritual truths cannot be discerned through contradictions nor misapplied scriptures.

Are you trying to tell us that you believe your body will never die?

Nope. I'm pointing out that I don't go out and intentionally get sick or injure this body, and this body is not mine to do with as I please.

(If Christ returns before you die, then you might never die; but if you live a regular lifespan before He returns, of course your body will die, even if just of old age).

Those who are in Christ will never die. Death has lost its sting. There is no death in Christ. Again, it's not my body. It's nothing but dirt really. There is no "lifespan" with Christ. Christ is life; eternal life. Christ does not return to those who are already in Christ. As Christ pointed out: "Apart from me, you can do nothing".

Then there are those who must wait to believe the good news just as the Pharisees stood in the way blocking those who were aggressively forcing their way into the kingdom two thousand years ago. Things are no different today. There are those who are aggressively making their way into the kingdom as the rest scoff and mockingly act like they've found the truth in the only witness they know which is clearly pointing out that they are blind to the reality of the kingdom right in front of them.

All of Christianity is still under the same covenant Adam made with Satan in the garden. They are all seeking to be with God never seeing(not to be confused with some intellectual understanding) that they are the very image of God. Still believing that God is afar off rather than right in their midst. Still believing that they can sin and repent when God is right there in the midst of their sin. We think we can hide just like Adam and Eve hid from God; it's preposterous.

The modern day Christian believes God is going to come looking for them just like God came looking for Adam and Eve in the garden. The sad fact is that the results will be the same; banishment from his presence.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 51 by shnarkle]

Shnarkle, I'm not going to keep explaining this to you. I was merely summarizing someone else's position (from post 4) which I questioned starting in post 17. You jumped in and responded to post 17 (which was not addressed to you) and from there you have continued to mistake that post 4 opinion as my own.

Thanks for the clarification. It still doesn't make much sense to then claim that the law is done away with, which is your conclusion anyways. You've repeatedly made that claim so while the clarification was necessary, it doesn't effectively change your position. It just makes it a bit weaker.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 47 by tam]


First, to keep us in context, when I said Paul did not consider any food to be unclean, you responded "says you". I then posted the following verses where Paul says this. You are the one who is adding what Paul "would or would not have" meant.



Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord [Jesus], that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.


All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

There are no references whatsoever to anything in the dietary laws in this passage. If so, where?

Interesting is it not? One would think that if these people were indeed under the dietary laws of the old covenant, then Paul would at least mention that law, and make note for them what foods are clean and what foods are not clean, according to that law. That should clear the matter up for them.

But he does not do this. He simply states that all food is clean, and that nothing (in the context of this discussion on food) is unclean in itself.

All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

And yet practically no Christian would ever consider obeying the dietary laws even if it meant preventing the rest of the world from stumbling. Of the three Abrahamic religions, only Christianity disregards the dietary laws, and yet how many Muslims or Jews would notice if Christianity began to keep God's commandments? How many of them would be prevented from stumbling when invited to a Christian's home for dinner knowing that Christians now keep the dietary laws? Don't you think it's a bit odd that Christians boast in not keeping the dietary laws which prevent all observant Jews and Muslims from ever having much of anything to do with them socially or otherwise? This is exactly what Paul is pointing out. If the Christian is truly more concerned with the welfare of his fellow man, they would have no problem keeping God's commandments for the sake of a lost world in desperate need of hearing the gospel message.

Just how is an observant Jew who comes to a saving faith in Christ supposed to break bread with fellow Christians who are eating what he has vowed to God he would never do?

Some comments on the above:

A - Who would invite a Jew or a Muslim to break bread with them, and then turn around and serve something they know that Jew or Muslim cannot (in good conscience) eat? If you invite someone into your home, you serve food that they can eat (out of love for your fellow man) even if you know that all food is clean, even if you are permitted to eat anything.

If a mistake is made in ignorance by a host, then the Jew or a Muslim has opportunity to show love for their fellow man, by forgiving them their error. As I am sure that they would wish to be forgiven if they offended someone out of ignorance as well. (Second greatest commandment at work here for both parties; the law - of love - at work.)


B - There are many who profess to be Christian who do not drink alcohol (Mormons for example). Do you also not drink alcohol so as to keep from stumbling them? What about vegetarians, who are perhaps stumbled by your eating meat (if indeed you eat meat)? Or do you simply not serve them such things, and perhaps refrain from consuming such things in their presence (depending upon their preference).


C - Dietary laws are not the reason Jews and Muslims do not accept the Christian faith. One main concern for them is the teaching of the trinity doctrine (a valid concern). I do not know if you hold to that doctrine or not, but if you do, are you going to set it aside for those who cannot accept it? Dietary issues were also not the concern for those who rejected Christ (in the flesh) two thousand years ago, so it does not stand to reason that this is what keeps people from coming to Christ today.


**

In the following, please note that Paul is not rebuking Cephas for eating with Gentiles or for living like a Gentile.


When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? Galatians 2:11-1




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 53 by shnarkle]

The same arguments you use to support your position are being used to support adultery, sodomy, fornication, drug use, incest, pedophilia, bestiality etc. This list will only grow as time goes on.

Just because someone abuses an argument, does not mean the argument itself is false.


People also abuse the golden rule (often to try and discredit it as a means to try and discredit God), but that does not mean there is anything wrong with the golden rule itself (or that there is anything wrong with God).



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 47 by tam]

Nothing in those laws states that (the meat of) unclean animals are not in the food category at all.

What is it about "ye shall NOT eat" that suggests to you that this is food?

The fact that Israel had to be told not to eat it. The fact that you do not have to tell people not to eat rocks (your example) because everyone knows that rocks are not food. The fact that others eat those things (rabbits or shellfish, etc) as food, and that will meet their protein dietary requirements (they could even live off of eating just those things for a time; no one could live off eating rocks for any amount of time).


Do Leviticus 11 or Deuteronomy 14 ever state that cattle (for example) is food, and rabbits (for example) are not food? Or do those chapters simply state that cattle is clean and its meat is permitted to be eaten by Israel, and rabbits are unclean and its meat is not permitted to be eaten by Israel?

It does not state that the meat of some animals is food and the meat of other animals is not food.

It most certainly does.

See above.

That's exactly what is meant by clean and unclean. Clean animals are food, and unclean animals are not acceptable as food.

They were not acceptable as food. That is not the same as them not BEING food.

There's a website online called "Ask Moses" You can google it and ask them. They will tell you the same thing Paul is saying. Paul is not contradicting the Mosaic law.

A - Then it would not be Moses that I was asking, rather it would just be people claiming to speak for Moses. Yes?

B - If it were even possible (and it is not), why would I ask the mediator of the old covenant a question concerning the new covenant? Why would I not just ask Christ, the mediator of the new covenant?

Is that not what Moses told Israel they must do when God "will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him." Is Christ not the one to whom God told us to listen?

"This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to Him."


Why not simply ask Him? The living Word of God?




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 64 by tam]

First, to keep us in context, when I said Paul did not consider any food to be unclean, you responded "says you". I then posted the following verses where Paul says this. You are the one who is adding what Paul "would or would not have" meant.

No, I am pointing out that Paul was an observant Jew just like the rest of the authors of the bible, and he never suggests that he is allowing or condoning the violation of any of God's laws. He is clear when he points out that no one is justified, or made righteous by keeping the law, but to then assume that this does away with any of God's commandments is a blatant non sequitur. No one is made righteous by being faithful to their spouse, but no one would then conclude that it is perfectly acceptable to commit adultery with gentiles just because Paul has proclaimed that they are now clean.

Paul explicitly points out that the sacrificial system is done away with for those who "walk after the Spirit", that doesn't do away with any of God's commandments either.

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.

If we are to take your interpretation, then Paul is explicitly pointing out that the dietary laws are a stumbling block or obstacle. How many of God's commandments can we say the same thing about? Couldn't we make that claim for all of God's commandments? The law against adultery is a stumblig block for those who are living in adulterous relationships. In most churches today, those who do this are disfellowshipped, defrocked, etc. Are we to refrain from "Judging" them as well?

I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord [Jesus], that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.

The first thing to be cognizant of is that when Paul was writing these letters, the only scriptures available to the church were the Old Testament scriptures. The New Testament didn't exist as we have it today. Some of Paul's letters were floating around, but that's about it. Even the gospel narratives weren't written down till those of "the way" were ejected from the synagogues.

Next, notice that Paul begins chapter 14 with this:

He who is weak in the faith receive, but not to doubtful disputations

There is no doubt as to what the dietary laws state. They are clear and easy to understand. The very next verse points out that this weak individual believes one should only "eat herbs". Again, I have already pointed out that the dietary laws never insist on vegetarianism. Verse 5 brings up those who are esteeming one day or a few days above the rest. There is no reference to the Sabbath or to the Feast days of the Lord. These are days that people are holding in esteem which can easily be seen in the feast days of the Catholic church. Paul is pointing out that they are free to hold whatever days they please in esteem, but this in no way negates the feast days of the Lord or the Sabbath.

In 1 Cor.1:10 Paul points out that there should be no divisions, but if one groups is keeping the Sabath and another group decides to observe Sunday, then there's going to be divisions. Given that Paul observes not only the weekly Sabbath and the Feast days, AND enjoins the church to do the same, there is no reason to assume that just because Paul points out we shouldn't judge people that this is an invitation to do whatever we please. It's a non sequitur. It doesn't follow.

To say "nothing is unclean in itself" is easily being extended to all sexual relationships today including incest, sodomy, bestiality,etc. This is not abusing an argument. It is the exact same argument, and it is being used quite effectively to allow for all manner of sexual congress becoming acceptable in society and in the moder day church.

All food is clean,

And swine isn't defined as acceptable as food in the bible, therefore he isn't even referring to what is NOT acceptable as food in the first place. Context is key here, and the context is explicitly referring to vegetarianism. Paul hasn't redefined what is acceptable or not anywhere in any of his letters. Therefore we needn't assume that he is now referring to food in terms that are completely foreign to his understanding.

but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

To eat meat rather than vegetables. This is explicitly what the context is talking about. To assume this includes eating what God explicitly refers to as "an abomination" makes no sense whatsoever. That is what you are adding.

Paul could very likely have made the same argument with regards to a Jew marrying a gentile, or perhaps even a practicing pagan. He very likely would have made the same argument pointing out that all pagans are now clean and we shouldn't judge anyone over their marriage. It does not then follow that he is now allowing for all sorts of marriage arrangements that the bible explicitly prohibits. e.g. between siblings, parents and their children, between those of the same sex, etc. That is simply a non sequitur. Would you agree? If so, then why the inconsistency with regard to what Paul has actually written? If not, then there are no marriages that can be prohibited, right? Regardless, I'm not judging any of them. I'm simply pointing out that just because one doesn't judge, doesn't then give people permission to violate God's commandments.

There are no references whatsoever to anything in the dietary laws in this passage. If so, where?

Interesting is it not?

It's quite telling that Paul has explicitly referenced what the problem is, and the problem is those who believe the church should be eating just herbs. There is no point in Paul going into what the dietary laws articulate because that's NOT the issue. You are adding the dietary laws into the mix when he isn't referring to the dietary laws at all. He's explicitly referring to those who think we should all be vegetarians.

It's the same issue with special days. If someone wants to hold in esteem their anniversary or a birthday and give thanks to God for the birth of their child, a parent, etc., Paul see's no problem with that, but this does not warrant Paul going into an explanation of each of the feast days that they are already celebrating because the issue isn't whether or not these feast days should be kept or not.

Paul points out that fornication is wrong, but he doesn't then expound on all of the acceptable and unacceptable relationships in the law of Moses. His audience already knows this. They just need to be reminded of the fact that fornication isn't acceptable because that's what he's been told they're doing. He hasn't been told that they're eating rocks so he doesn't have to remind them that eating rocks is unacceptable.

One would think that if these people were indeed under the dietary laws of the old covenant, then Paul would at least mention that law,

There is no point in Paul mentioning the keeping of the dietary laws especialy when they are already keeping them. Did you notice that at no time does Paul ever reprimand any of his churches for engaging in necrophilia, or bestiality? The simple fact is that there is no point in doing this if they aren't engaging in these activities in the first place. Does that make sense to you? If not, why not?

and make note for them what foods are clean and what foods are not clean, according to that law. That should clear the matter up for them.

There is nothing to clear up in the first place. It was common knowledge back then just as it is today. How many people are ignorant of the fact that Jews don't eat pork? How long would it take for them to figure this out if they joined the Jewish faith? When Luke records the fact that they have the Mosaic law being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day(Acts 15:21), it stands to reason that it won't take long for those who don't know to figure it out. The fact is that Paul only makes references to issues that are a problem. He isn't going to bring up some gross violation of a commandment if they are keeping it already.

But he does not do this. He simply states that all food is clean, and that nothing (in the context of this discussion on food) is unclean in itself.

Sorry, but the context is explicitly dealing with those who insist on eating "herbs". If someone says we should all be vegetarians, it doesn't then follow that we can now assume that eating toxic waste from a nuclear power plant is acceptable, or that drinking used oil from your car is okay to drink. We don't then need to be instructed on an exhuastive list of what we can eat or drink when the issue is confined to vegetarianism.

Who would invite a Jew or a Muslim to break bread with them, and then turn around and serve something they know that Jew or Muslim cannot (in good conscience) eat?

You don't understand the problem. A Jew or Muslim isn't going to bother because they already know that even if the Christian is going to serve beef instead of swine, the house isn't likely to be kosher. You have no idea what happens when those who have kept kosher all their lives get even the slightest bit of grease from swine. They can become violently ill. They're simply not going to take the chance. They will only go to a home that they know is kosher. Christians will serve pork to their non Jewish guests while offering to serve poultry or beef to their Jewish friends never knowing that the grease from the pork that is being cooked on the same grill will make their Jewish guests sick. This is what a Christian thinks is loving, but Paul is clear when he says they aren't being charitable at all. Those Jews are going to stumble because they can't hack eating or even being around polluted garbage. It isn't just detestable to God. It's detestable to anyone who has kept the dietary laws their whole life.

If you invite someone into your home, you serve food that they can eat (out of love for your fellow man) even if you know that all food is clean, even if you are permitted to eat anything.

Again, the level of love that is required is beyong your ability to grasp. An observant Jew isn't going to waste their time with those who think they have good intentions. It is only those who are given the love of God that can live according to all of God's law. There is no cherry picking with God's laws. We saw the same thing happen with homosexuality. At first it was "don't judge or persecute what people choose to do behind closed doors". Now it's a parade of people engaging in sodomy in the street in broad daylight. The city of San Francisco refuses to allow law enforcement to arrest anyone engaging in indecent exposure, sodomy, circle jerks, etc. when they have their gay pride parades. "It's all good". So when you are invited to a gay pride parade, they will set aside an area for you to sit where you will not inadvertantly be sodomized or slip and fall in someone's lubrication, even though they know that all sexual activities are acceptable and permitted. Do you see how much love they have? They want to love everyone, and show everyone how much love they have to give. Are you going to accept their invitation?

If a mistake is made in ignorance by a host, then the Jew or a Muslim has opportunity to show love for their fellow man, by forgiving them their error.

If an eager homosexual crosses the barrier set up by the parade commity, and zealously shows how much he loves some of the spectators by forcing himself on a few of them, they now have an opportunity to show love for their fellow man, by forgiving their error.

The Jew or Muslim can forgive them their ignorance, but they can't accept the invitation in the first place as it is too risky for one's health. It would be no different for those who are routinely drug tested for their employment (e.g. commercial drivers, pilots, etc.) being invited to a dinner party where their is a good chance there will be people smoking pot. They simply can't take the chance on losing their job. With the observant Jew it is much more serious as they would be putting themselves in a position where they would have to decline eating what is put in front of them, and their host would be embarassed. They have a higher standard to keep. They have a higher standard of love for their neighbor which requires them to prevent their neighbor from being unnecessarily embarrassed. They also have more self respect in that they aren't going to place themselves in a position where they may become violently ill. It would be the same for those who are not interested in watching people engage in sodomy or perhaps being sodomized by those who see an opportunity to "show their love" to those who aren't interested in the first place. It is the same for those who don't want their head clouded with dope smoke. So they have to politely decline.

As I am sure that they would wish to be forgiven if they offended someone out of ignorance as well. (Second greatest commandment at work here for both parties; the law - of love - at work.)

And the law of love would never think to put anyone in a position where they would be embarrassed in front of all their dinner guests for being so inconsiderate. They can be as gracious as they please, but it takes real love to know not to put people in those embarrasing positions in the first place.

There are many who profess to be Christian who do not drink alcohol (Mormons for example). Do you also not drink alcohol so as to keep from stumbling them?

You better believe it, but this isn't about me. Please try to confine your comments to the topic.

What about vegetarians, who are perhaps stumbled by your eating meat (if indeed you eat meat)?

It's so difficult to find a healthy piece of meat today, there's no point in bothering anymore. Unless you can get it in the wild, you're better off eating just vegetables, and non-GMO only.

Or do you simply not serve them such things, and perhaps refrain from consuming such things in their presence (depending upon their preference).

It doesn't matter if they're present or not. You're taking your life in your hands eating meat today. It's getting to be the same story with vegetables as well. Grow your own, if you value your own health. How does this argument work with regards to sodomy? Do we accept anyone and everyone into our churches if they are polite enough to keep their incestuous sexual relationships hidden during church services? The problem is in that there are actually people who hear the gospel message and come out and confess that they've been having an adulterous affair. They repent and make amends. What happens when adultery is no longer seen as sin? When someone then confesses publicly that they've been living in sin, those who are also living in adulterous relationships are going to be offended. They will mock and ridicule those confessing over nothing of any consequence. It would be like someone coming before the congregation and confessing that they had been consuming pork.

Dietary laws are not the reason Jews and Muslims do not accept the Christian faith.

Straw man argument. I'm not claiming that keeping one law will convert Jews or Muslims. My argument is in pointing out that if Christians were to accept the standard God has given them, this would have phenomenal repurcussions throughout the world. Christians woud rather cherry pick instead. The real irony is in justifying sin, which Christ himself calls an abomination.

One main concern for them is the teaching of the trinity doctrine (a valid concern). I do not know if you hold to that doctrine or not, but if you do, are you going to set it aside for those who cannot accept it?

Sure, it's not required for salvation. There is no place in the bible where anyone requires a belief in the doctrine of the trinity to be saved.

Dietary issues were also not the concern for those who rejected Christ (in the flesh) two thousand years ago,

That is only because the converts had no problem keeping the dietary laws. The only issue was with regards to some still feeling it was okay to eat or drink blood. That is why it was mentioned.

so it does not stand to reason that this is what keeps people from coming to Christ today.

It's a factor. Those who justify lawlessness are going to be shunned by those who value God's commandments. Just because the person doesn't see what they're doing as sin, doesn't change the fact that it is sin. Unless you believe God will set up a kingdom with a caste system, there is no "least" in the kingdom. God is not going to allow those who teach people to disobey his commandments into the kingdom.


**

In the following, please note that Paul is not rebuking Cephas for eating with Gentiles or for living like a Gentile.


When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? Galatians 2:11-1

You haven't made a point here. You still need to connect the dots. So far, you haven't done that. Do you assume that refraining from murder, incest, fornication, theft, etc. are Jewish customs? Do you believe that refraining from adutery is a Jewish custom? How about building a home that is safe to inhabit? God's commandments are more than just customs.

Here's the problem. In ancient Celtic and British societies, it was customary to copulate as a form of introduction. This was especially prevalent among monarchs, and is well documented. Do you see how one man's custom is another man's sin? Paul is explicitly referring to Jewish "customs". He is not referring to commandments at all. Violating a Jewish tradition doesn't require a sin offering.

Just because Peter is living like a gentile doens't mean he's not keeping kosher. Paul didn't say a thing about what Peter was eating. He made no references to his diet because that's not just some custom. It's the law of God.

What Christians would have us all believe is that Peter is sitting down with Gentiles and telling them to fork over their pork chops and watch as he eats pork in front of them.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 65 by tam]

The same arguments you use to support your position are being used to support adultery, sodomy, fornication, drug use, incest, pedophilia, bestiality etc. This list will only grow as time goes on.

Just because someone abuses an argument, does not mean the argument itself is false.

It's not an abuse of the argument. It's the exact same argument. There is no difference between the fact that you believe eating pork is perfectly acceptable, and the fact that the drug user sees nothing wrong with doing drugs. Those engaged in a loving incestuous, homosexual relationship see absolutely nothing wrong with what they're doing, and our argument fits perfectly into their justification for their lifestyle. It also grants them membership into the Christian community. Christian churches around the country are now admitting that fact because they can't see their way around recanting and admitting they goofed.


The arugment is blatantly false in ALL examples, especially yours.

People also abuse the golden rule (often to try and discredit it as a means to try and discredit God), but that does not mean there is anything wrong with the golden rule itself (or that there is anything wrong with God).

The golden rule is from the Old Testament. Christ himself abrogated it when he points out that his disciples are to now love others as he loves them. Unless one has the Spirit of Christ indwelling in them, that is quite simply impossible. The sado-masochist will continue to treat others the way he wants to be treated. Do you see the problem yet? One can empathize with another human being without ever seeing Christ in themselves or another human being. It is only when people see Christ in themselves and everyone around them that the love of God is manifested "in your midst".

The golden rule doesn't work with a profane and corrupt people. See the difference? People with low self esteem will treat others just like they treat themselves.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 66 by tam]

Nothing in those laws states that (the meat of) unclean animals are not in the food category at all.

What is it about "ye shall NOT eat" that suggests to you that this is food?

The fact that Israel had to be told not to eat it. The fact that you do not have to tell people not to eat rocks (your example) because everyone knows that rocks are not food.

You're making my point for me. Everyone doesn't know that rocks are not food. People who are crazy eat rocks. God just has a higher standard of sanity than most. Just because people put something into their mouth doesn't make it food. If people started eating rocks, God would have done the same thing. They're living in bondage, and therefore they are doing what those who are lost do. So God reveals, or more accurately; reminds them that they are not to eat garbage anymore. Why? Because garbage is NOT food.

The fact that others eat those things (rabbits or shellfish, etc) as food, and that will meet their protein dietary requirements (they could even live off of eating just those things for a time; no one could live off eating rocks for any amount of time).

You don't seem to understand how this works at all. Children could get away with it, but a grown adult would become violently ill. They would have to take the most minute amounts mixed with acceptable vegetables, grains, etc. to build up their tolerance. There is a huge segment of the populations of first world countries that rarely eat fruits or vegetables anymore. They eat fast food, and drink alcohol, and can still live into their 40's and 50's. Just because the human body is reslilient enough to live that long on such a horrid diet doesn't make it a good idea.

Do Leviticus 11 or Deuteronomy 14 ever state that cattle (for example) is food, and rabbits (for example) are not food?

Yep. That's explicitly what they're saying.

Or do those chapters simply state that cattle is clean and its meat is permitted to be eaten by Israel, and rabbits are unclean and its meat is not permitted to be eaten by Israel?

A distinction without a difference. There is no effective difference whatsoever.

They were not acceptable as food. That is not the same as them not BEING food.

It is EXACTLY the same. Filthy polluted garbage is not food. It's filthy polluted garbage, and it's an abomination. Again, one can make the same claim to unacceptable sexual relationships, but to God incest, bestiality, sodomy, necrophilia are not considered sexual relationships. The authors of the Old Testament refer to it as "confusion", e.g. "It is confusion", and "an abomination".

There's a website online called "Ask Moses" You can google it and ask them. They will tell you the same thing Paul is saying. Paul is not contradicting the Mosaic law.

Then it would not be Moses that I was asking, rather it would just be people claiming to speak for Moses. Yes?

It would be people referencing EXACTLY what Moses wrote in the Torah, and pointing out that unclean animals are not considered acceptable as food. There is no place anywhere in the manuscripts where these things are refered to as "food" or "meat".

If it were even possible (and it is not), why would I ask the mediator of the old covenant a question concerning the new covenant?

Becaues Christ and Paul both point out that the New covenant is not done away with at all, but explicitly point out that it is now kept "by faith". One now serves 'not by the letter, but in the newness of life". Making a decision to serve God, and sticking to it as best one can with all of the effort they can muster spotlights exactly why the Old Testament failed. Paul is clear in pointing out that "will and effort" are useless. Moses would make the same observation, and does so by pointing out that God is not afar off, but right in front of them. When one sees God right in front of them, it become impossible to sin. What do the children of Israel do when God calls them before Him to prove them? They "stood afar off". The New Testament manifests this as a reality for those who now walk in the newness of life and no longer fulfill the lust of the flesh. Why? Because you simply cannot run through red lights and bury your speedometer beyond 100 mph when there is a State Trooper in your rear view mirror. Those who are aware of God's presence in their lives cannot sin.

Why would I not just ask Christ, the mediator of the new covenant?

Because even the risen Christ will be of no avail to those who ignore Moses or the prophets. Christ pointed this out himself. Do you believe what Christ says? Here's what he says:

If you can't hear what Moses and the prophets have said, you won't be able to hear it from someone who is risen from the dead (Luke 16:31)

Is that not what Moses told Israel

They didn't listen to Moses, so they didn't listen to Christ either. See how that works?

... when God "will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him."

Who is speaking here? Moses, right? Guess what? Moses and Christ are saying the EXACT same thing. The prophets point out that Christ will "magnify the law". That means he keeps it, and nowhere does he ever suggest that the law should not be kept.

Is Christ not the one to whom God told us to listen?

Sure, and Christ pointed out that if anyone teach disobedience to even the least commandments, they will never enter into the kingdom.

"This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to Him."

And Christ told the healed lepers to go and document that they were now clean. If eveyone is clean, then there is no such thing as unclean, yet Paul points out that we're not to touch "any unclean thing". How can that be if it's all clean now?

Why not simply ask Him? The living Word of God?

Indeed. Why not ask why it makes more sense to do away with what is unclean than to simply stop sinning? What point is there in coming to offer oneself as a sacrifice for sin, when all we need to do is do away with the law? Where there is no law, there is no sin, right? The problem is always that there can be no sin without the law to begin with. The law is eternal because it is synonymous with God's will. Paul points out that there is no law against mercy, patience, long suffering, etc.. He never suggests that the commandments are done away with.

Christ is the manifestation of God's will. He's the embodiment and personification of God's law, and Paul as well as all who are reborn in Christ have lost their identity in Christ. At that point, one needn't ever ask Christ if it's okay to murder, or covet our neighbor's wife, etc. Christ only says "Follow me" to those who are drawn to him in the first place. The rest receive answers to questions they don't really even care about in the first place, e.g. the rich young ruler, Pilate, etc.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 68 by shnarkle]

Your concept would make believers who eat pork more depraved and carnal then pork eating non believers?

Thats not going to make you very popular I'm thinking?