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"?..for whatever is not of faith is sin.
What does Paul mean, when he says
Moderator: Moderators
-
Elijah John
- Savant
- Posts: 12236
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
- Location: New England
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
What does Paul mean, when he says
Post #1Romans 14.33
My theological positions:
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
Re: What does Paul mean, when he says
Post #41[Replying to post 39 by postroad]
I think we can safely say it's a moot point given the Temple is no longer standing so it makes no difference one way or the other. There is no Levitical priesthood to serve when there is no temple to serve in the first place.
I don't recall where he may have made that claim. I know he made some claims that there is a priesthood that is superior to it, but I don't remember if he said it was null and void.Would you agree that Paul declared the Levitical priesthood null and void?
I think we can safely say it's a moot point given the Temple is no longer standing so it makes no difference one way or the other. There is no Levitical priesthood to serve when there is no temple to serve in the first place.
Re: What does Paul mean, when he says
Post #42[Replying to post 41 by shnarkle]
Hebrews 7:18-19 New International Version (NIV)
18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
Hebrews 7:18-19 New International Version (NIV)
18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
Re: What does Paul mean, when he says
Post #43Right, therefore the new priesthood doesn't offer sacrifice in order to deal with sin because the new covenant is based upon faith rather than "will or effort".postroad wrote: [Replying to post 41 by shnarkle]
Hebrews 7:18-19 New International Version (NIV)
18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
Therefore:
This is referring to those passages in Jeremiah and Ezekiel where we read that the new heart is placed in the new creature which then not only enables them to keep God's commandments, but points outs that this is what they will do. The new creation is created to keep God's commandments.For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11
And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Re: What does Paul mean, when he says
Post #45[Replying to post 44 by postroad]
The promise of a new covenant was to Israel first and then to the Gentile, and the laws of God are to be written in our hearts. Which laws would these be?(Hebrews 8:7-10;Romans 1:16;Ephesians 2:11-13,19-22)
I'll give just one of many examples to prove Paul is in no way doing away with the law. In Romans 7:1-6 Paul tells the story of a woman who is "loosed from the law to her husband." He concludes his illustration by stating, "Now we are delivered from the law."
In the illustration, Paul explains that "the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man."
"Wherefore," Paul concludes, "ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. "
To keep us from misunderstanding his point, Paul prefaced the story by declaring that "the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth." That is clear. Even in the illustration he affirms that "if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress." These facts show that Paul considered the commandments to be still binding.
Furthermore, notice that even the death of the husband does not change the law. Even after the man dies, the law still says the same thing it always said about remarriage. The law has not changed, only the womans relation to it. The woman is freed from the law, not because of any annulling of the law, but because there is no law against remarriage after a spouses death.
So it is with the one who has the power of Christ in his life. He is delivered from the law because he no longer violates the law. The law has not changed. It still requires just what it always did. But the Christian has changed. His life now exhibits the fruit of the Spirit: "Love, joy, peace,... against such there is no law"(Galatians 5:22, 23).
The problem of being "in the flesh" (Romans 7:5) lies in "the motions of sins" which are defined by the law. The problem is not the law, but sin (verses 7-13). Here is the point. We are "delivered from the law" when we become "dead to that wherein we were held" (verse 6, margin). Since it was sin which held us, only death to sin (Romans 6:2) can deliver us from the law. By experiencing such death to sin we are enabled to serve the law "in newness of the spirit" (Romans 7:6).
No, he doesn'tPaul includes the whole Law as being see aside.
The promise of a new covenant was to Israel first and then to the Gentile, and the laws of God are to be written in our hearts. Which laws would these be?(Hebrews 8:7-10;Romans 1:16;Ephesians 2:11-13,19-22)
I'll give just one of many examples to prove Paul is in no way doing away with the law. In Romans 7:1-6 Paul tells the story of a woman who is "loosed from the law to her husband." He concludes his illustration by stating, "Now we are delivered from the law."
In the illustration, Paul explains that "the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man."
"Wherefore," Paul concludes, "ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. "
To keep us from misunderstanding his point, Paul prefaced the story by declaring that "the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth." That is clear. Even in the illustration he affirms that "if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress." These facts show that Paul considered the commandments to be still binding.
Furthermore, notice that even the death of the husband does not change the law. Even after the man dies, the law still says the same thing it always said about remarriage. The law has not changed, only the womans relation to it. The woman is freed from the law, not because of any annulling of the law, but because there is no law against remarriage after a spouses death.
So it is with the one who has the power of Christ in his life. He is delivered from the law because he no longer violates the law. The law has not changed. It still requires just what it always did. But the Christian has changed. His life now exhibits the fruit of the Spirit: "Love, joy, peace,... against such there is no law"(Galatians 5:22, 23).
The problem of being "in the flesh" (Romans 7:5) lies in "the motions of sins" which are defined by the law. The problem is not the law, but sin (verses 7-13). Here is the point. We are "delivered from the law" when we become "dead to that wherein we were held" (verse 6, margin). Since it was sin which held us, only death to sin (Romans 6:2) can deliver us from the law. By experiencing such death to sin we are enabled to serve the law "in newness of the spirit" (Romans 7:6).
Re: What does Paul mean, when he says
Post #46[Replying to post 40 by postroad]
Similarly, Paul could point out that admiring the artwork and sculpture within pagan temples is not a problem for one's conscience, but it would not then follow that it is acceptable to worship or engage the services of temple prostitutes in pagan temples.
Paul could say that a woman who reveals that she is a temple prostitute should be avoided, but this does not then mean that it is okay to engage in prostitution if the woman doesn't happen to be a temple prostitute.
The only difference in these examples is that with the case of swine, it is already acceptable as food to the unbeliever. The unbeliever is just as free and liberated as the believer so there is no difference, and therefore not point in being a believer. The truth will set you free.
It's exactly what I suggested.Paul's stance on "food" wasn't what you suggested.
We also know from Acts 15:21 that Gentile converts are going into the synagogues on the Sabbath learning the Mosaic law, and the Mosaic law (which Paul himself upholds) points out what is acceptable as "meat" (a better translation would be "food"), and what isn't.1 Corinthians 10:25-30 New International Version (NIV)
25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, The earth is the Lords, and everything in it.
(Don't give it a second thought)
Given that the context is dealing with meat sacrificed to idols, the subject of what is being presented isn't the issue, but instead whether or not it was offered to pagan gods.27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.
(Don't give it a second thought.)
See what the subject is dealing with? Paul doesn't say, "This is swine..." because that's not the issue he's dealing with.28 But if someone says to you, This has been offered in sacrifice, then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience.
Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals long before he ever entered the Ark. There is no reason to suppose that anyone in the lineage between Adam and Noah ever offered swine for a sacrifice to God. It doesn't matter if an unbeliever is present. It only matters is an unbeliever points out that the food has been offered to pagan gods. That's the whole point of the text. It has nothing to do with what is offered, but who it's offered to. There is nothing in the text that suggests that Paul is condoning eating swine, or catfish, or anything that violates God's commandments. If so, where is the issue of eating unclean animals brought up, and where does Paul point out that any of the commandments are done away with? The issue is pagan sacrifice, not what is sacrificed.( only the Noahide prohibition applies and only with an unbeliever present)
Paul is not free to sin. That is not Paul's idea of freedom. Paul's use of freedom and liberty is in reference to his freedom or liberty FROM sin, not is freedom or liberty TO sin.29 I am referring to the other persons conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by anothers conscience?
Quite right, but the problem is that swine is not food according to an observant Jew's definition. It isn't what is in view in any of this.(Not because there is even anything wrong with eating it.
And the enlightened don't consider swine, shellfish, or anything that violates God's commandments as food.Simply to not cause offence to the unenlightened)
The issue at hand is not whether what is presented is acceptable as food or not, but whether what is presented is offered to pagan gods is acceptable or not. It is the fallacy of the non sequitur. Just because one is acceptable it doesn't then follow that the other is as well. We could make the same argument with regards to acceptable and unacceptable sexual relations which are outlined in the Mosaic law as well. Pagans engaged in all manner of unacceptable sexual relations with children, homosexuality, etc. It goes without saying, so Paul could just as easily point out that one needn't be bothered by their conscience if an unbeliever doesn't point out that they've been engaging in ritual prostitution. It would not then follow that unacceptable sexual relations are now condoned by Paul just because one is not engaging in them in a pagan temple.30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
(God doesn't care what is eaten)
Similarly, Paul could point out that admiring the artwork and sculpture within pagan temples is not a problem for one's conscience, but it would not then follow that it is acceptable to worship or engage the services of temple prostitutes in pagan temples.
Paul could say that a woman who reveals that she is a temple prostitute should be avoided, but this does not then mean that it is okay to engage in prostitution if the woman doesn't happen to be a temple prostitute.
The only difference in these examples is that with the case of swine, it is already acceptable as food to the unbeliever. The unbeliever is just as free and liberated as the believer so there is no difference, and therefore not point in being a believer. The truth will set you free.
-
tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6883
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 387 times
- Been thanked: 357 times
- Contact:
Re: What does Paul mean, when he says
Post #47Peace to you,
Says Paul.
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.
Paul does not consider any food to be unclean.
Nothing in those laws states that (the meat of) unclean animals are not in the food category at all.
Your entire argument against Paul's words (that all food is clean) rests on the idea that the meat of unclean animals was never in the food category at all, like a rock (your example) is not food.
But you have not once shown that the issue was distinguishing between food and 'not food' (such as a rock). The issue was distinguishing between clean and unclean food.
The issue was never this is food and this is 'not food' (such as a rock).
That law did not save anyone.
Not likely what?
That we have received physical examples to help us to understand spiritual realities? The arrangement of the Temple shows that no one comes to the Father except through the Son. Since one cannot come to the Most Holy Place (representing the Most Holy One) except through the Holy Place (representing the Holy One).
Are you making the claim that gentiles must get circumcised (in the flesh)?
No, we do not judge one another. Their actions (in keeping the law - love) will condemn those who have the written code and circumcision, but who do not keep the law that they are boasting in.
In the same way that Noah condemned the world by his faith. The world at that time cannot claim that it was impossible for them to have had or exercised faith, when Noah showed that it is possible to do just that, and when Noah did what was right.
You're missing it.
Love fulfills (even surpasses for that matter) the law. How can that be? Love IS the law.
Have you not stated that God does not dwell within anyone who eats pork or shellfish? That anyone who claims to be in the Body of Christ (such as myself), is unclean and filthy if such a one eats pork or shellfish and so such a one can not be in the Body of Christ?
If that is what you are saying, then what about the gentiles who came to Christ and who received holy spirit because of their faith? If they received holy spirit, then they were in Christ, yes? And if they were in Christ, then they were clean, yes?
You still have not answered the question.
Yes, I looked it up. Many versions say unclean food; but a more literal version says that they will eat unclean things. What do you suppose that means?
What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."
And this:
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
You are trying to write that off by saying that the only reason the person ate rotten food is because they desired in their heart to do what God has forbidden. But that is not the case. You aren't even taking into consideration all the other possible reasons a person might have eaten rotten food.
If they stop eating food altogether, then they may have issues.
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? And where is the love in you daring someone to try a fast to see how the body reacts? If a fast is for God, then should it be used as some sort of experiment? And if a person does have a pre-existing health condition, then your dare could result in harm coming to them, yes?
Regardless, to anyone reading (including yourself):
"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?
Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-- when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before you, and the glory of [the LORD] will be your rear guard.
Then you will call, and [the LORD] will answer; you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.
"If you do away with the yoke of oppression, with the pointing finger and malicious talk, and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday."
Isaiah 58
See above for the kind of fasting that God desires.
Paul often used one thing as an example demonstrating the spiritual truth, such as a husband and wife being likened to Christ and His Bride.
The prostitute he is warning people against uniting themselves with is the GREAT Prostitute (Babylon the Great).
Are you trying to tell us that you believe your body will never die?
(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).
You might want to be careful with relying on the flesh as proof of anything (other than what may or may not be good for the flesh). This could lead to judging, as the Pharisees judged those who were blind, or diseased, as being sinners (worse than anyone else).
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
I did not. I simply responded to the person who seemed to believe that. If you are in doubt, I would urge you to go back and re-read from the start.shnarkle wrote: [Replying to post 27 by tam]
My post was in response to the suggestion that Paul was telling his fellow Jews in this letter, to stop giving the Gentiles a hard time about what they were eating... because said gentiles were new and would eventually come around to obeying dietary laws of the Jews.
Where does Paul suggest that it is okay to let gentiles converts continue to sin in any of his letters?Because you posted that they " would eventually come around to obeying".I'm not sure why you are asking me this question.
Says you.Paul did not consider any food to be unclean,
Says Paul.
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.
Paul would never consider eating anything that was rotten or filthy, and that includes rotten or filthy food.
Paul does not consider any food to be unclean.
I do not know why you are saying everyone "else" must continue to rely upon Christ's sacrifice, as if there is someone out there who does not need to rely upon His sacrifice.And that would only be due to the fact that it was defined as a sin in the law. Paul never denies the law, only the "curse", and even then that only pertains to those who "walk after the Spirit". Everyone else must continue to rely upon Christ's sacrifice to cover their sins.and so he would not have suggested that they were sinning by anything they were eating (unless they themselves thought their food was unclean and that eating it was a sin).
Both of these support what I have been saying, that animals were divided into two categories: clean and unclean, and that the meat of the clean animals were permitted to be eaten (by Israel) and the meat of the unclean animals were not permitted to be eaten (by Israel), so that Israel would learn the difference between clean and unclean; just as they were to learn the difference between holy and common.Leviticus 11:1-23; Deuteronomy 14:1-15:23Please be so kind as to show where the Mosaic law states that unclean animals are not in the food category at all.
Nothing in those laws states that (the meat of) unclean animals are not in the food category at all.
It says one shall not eat the meat of unclean animals. It does not state that the meat of some animals is food and the meat of other animals is not food.Yes, it does. See the above references I provided for your edification where God stipulates that you shall not eat any abominable thing.The law does not state that the meat of some animals is food, and the meat of other animals is not food.
Your entire argument against Paul's words (that all food is clean) rests on the idea that the meat of unclean animals was never in the food category at all, like a rock (your example) is not food.
But you have not once shown that the issue was distinguishing between food and 'not food' (such as a rock). The issue was distinguishing between clean and unclean food.
Yes, clean and unclean food.Yep, and clean animals can be eaten while eating unclean animals is "an abomination" to God.Yes, it does. The law made the distinction between clean and unclean animals;The law did not make that distinction;
The issue was never this is food and this is 'not food' (such as a rock).
No, you are adding your own spin. Acts 15:21 states only that Moses has been preached from the earliest times and read in the synagogues. It does not state that the church was in the synagogues learning the Mosaic law.Acts 15:21 shows conclusively that the church is in the synagogues on the Sabbath learning the Mosaic law, and that this is the reason why the elders see no point in repeating what they're already learning.
That law did not save anyone.
"A man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but by what comes out of it.I never claimed they did. I pointed out that the body of Christ would never introduce something so defiling as swine into it.The living Temple - which is the body of Christ - has no animal sacrifices.
The same with circumcision of the flesh may help us to understand the circumcision of the heart (not the heart of flesh, but of the spirit)
Not likely.
Not likely what?
That we have received physical examples to help us to understand spiritual realities? The arrangement of the Temple shows that no one comes to the Father except through the Son. Since one cannot come to the Most Holy Place (representing the Most Holy One) except through the Holy Place (representing the Holy One).
You keep saying this about me, and I keep repeating to you that the law of God is LOVE.Circumcision is only a benefit when one keeps God's law(Romans 2:25), and you've just effectively made the claim that God's laws don't need to be kept so circumcision will be of no use to you whatsoever.
Are you making the claim that gentiles must get circumcised (in the flesh)?
Moreover, Paul goes on to point out that if those who are uncircumcised keep God's law, they will judge those who don't(Romans 2:27).
No, we do not judge one another. Their actions (in keeping the law - love) will condemn those who have the written code and circumcision, but who do not keep the law that they are boasting in.
In the same way that Noah condemned the world by his faith. The world at that time cannot claim that it was impossible for them to have had or exercised faith, when Noah showed that it is possible to do just that, and when Noah did what was right.
Quite right, but ignoring the law or redefining sin doesn't fulfill the law.I have consistently said that love is the law (love does not steal, love does not commit adultery, love does not bear false witness; love does not commit murder); Paul also said that love is the fulfillment of the law.
You're missing it.
Love fulfills (even surpasses for that matter) the law. How can that be? Love IS the law.
Why do you keep bringing up the 4th commandment with me?
I think you might want to look up the definition of 'summed up' because it doesn't mean 'subtract the 4th commandment'.
Are you not?Sure, but then so what? I'm not judging anyone here.Paul also said to stop judging one another, specifically he said this about judging others over what they eat (or don't eat).
Have you not stated that God does not dwell within anyone who eats pork or shellfish? That anyone who claims to be in the Body of Christ (such as myself), is unclean and filthy if such a one eats pork or shellfish and so such a one can not be in the Body of Christ?
If that is what you are saying, then what about the gentiles who came to Christ and who received holy spirit because of their faith? If they received holy spirit, then they were in Christ, yes? And if they were in Christ, then they were clean, yes?
How does eating pork or shellfish cause sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly?
It is quite arrogant to view God's laws as capricious, and to eat what God explicitly states is "filth" is one of the best examples of folly imaginable. It also seems to be the case that those who disregard God's law do seem to be quite deceived, and even intentionally engaging in deceit themselves.I most certainly did.You did not answer my question.
You still have not answered the question.
Maybe you quoted a verse, but it didn't state "unclean food". That verse doesn't exist in anything written by any of the authors of the bible.I specifically quoted a verse in my previous post that used the words 'unclean food'.
Yes, I looked it up. Many versions say unclean food; but a more literal version says that they will eat unclean things. What do you suppose that means?
Remember Matthew 15:11?There is ultimately only one reason, and it is because they are deceived and they have defiled themselves by their own desire to do what God has forbidden.Lets say that someone ate rotten food. Perhaps they have a mental disorder or some strange hormonal disorder causing them to crave rotten food. Perhaps they are homeless or starving. Whatever their reason, someone has eaten rotten food.
What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."
And this:
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
Yeah, you did.And again, I never said they would.That person will probably get sick (so it is not wise to eat rotten food), and depending upon how bad it is, they might even die.
But that person will not be rendered unclean before God because of the rotten food they ingested.
You are trying to write that off by saying that the only reason the person ate rotten food is because they desired in their heart to do what God has forbidden. But that is not the case. You aren't even taking into consideration all the other possible reasons a person might have eaten rotten food.
Your example does not follow the example of the alcoholic. The alcoholic has withdrawal if he does not consume alcohol. If a person who has eaten pork stops eating pork (but continues to eat 'clean' food), that person does not have withdrawal symptoms.Something similar happens to those who live on a diet of swine and shellfish. If they were to go a few days without eating, the toxins that have been stored in their own fat cells would begin to burn off and flood into their system causing havok. This is the case today with most people who subsist on a normal American diet. They can't go more than a few days without food before they get quite ill. It is only those who know enough to follow God's explicit instructions that have a chance of going on to fast like Christ himself calls us to. There are very few people nowadays who could get beyond a week, forget about 40 days of fasting.Liver damage springs to mind. And in fact, an alcoholic will have withdrawal if he suddenly stops drinking, even just for a single day.
If they stop eating food altogether, then they may have issues.
People will often claim that the bible isn't a science book, but God presents his law to his chosen people and then points out that to keep his law results in blessings while to ignore it results in curses. The proof is in the pudding. All one need to do is perform the experiment. I dare you to give it a shot. Chances are that it simply isn't possible because of a pre-existing health condition, or a few meals of pork followed by fasting for three or more days will inevitably lead to the quick realization that fasting isn't for you. And yet this is explicitly enjoined upon the church.
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? And where is the love in you daring someone to try a fast to see how the body reacts? If a fast is for God, then should it be used as some sort of experiment? And if a person does have a pre-existing health condition, then your dare could result in harm coming to them, yes?
Regardless, to anyone reading (including yourself):
"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?
Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-- when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before you, and the glory of [the LORD] will be your rear guard.
Then you will call, and [the LORD] will answer; you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.
"If you do away with the yoke of oppression, with the pointing finger and malicious talk, and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday."
Isaiah 58
Neither are the things that you are saying.No wonder no one even thinks to fast anymore. It will never enter into the mind of those who eat garbage to begin with, and if it does, watch out. It isn't pretty.
See above for the kind of fasting that God desires.
The vegetables versus fast food was your analogy. Obviously you cannot use it as an analogy because it does not support your claim.No, but the same doesn't hold true for those who have never eaten swine, shellfish, etc.There are people who grew up eating nothing but fast food, and can no longer handle fresh fruits or vegetables. It will make them violently ill.
In the short term, it can make them uncomfortable (gastrointestinal discomfort; same goes for anything that the body is not accustomed to eating and digesting). That does not make vegetables bad though, right?
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.Sounds nice, but nonetheless unbiblical.Every day is a sabbath; a day to set aside ourselves and do the work that God gives us.
Actually it is, and Paul points this out when he says:The Temple is not our physical flesh and blood body.
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, such as a husband and wife being likened to Christ and His Bride.
The prostitute he is warning people against uniting themselves with is the GREAT Prostitute (Babylon the Great).
Not when one has received the gospel message and denied themselves, or as Paul puts it "died to sin". Then the body houses the Spirit of God, and one does not bring swine into God's house.This flesh and blood has sin and death in it.
Speak for yourself.No matter how good you take care of it; it will get sick or injured, and it will die.
Are you trying to tell us that you believe your body will never die?
(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).
You might want to be careful with relying on the flesh as proof of anything (other than what may or may not be good for the flesh). This could lead to judging, as the Pharisees judged those who were blind, or diseased, as being sinners (worse than anyone else).
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
Re: What does Paul mean, when he says
Post #48[Replying to post 46 by shnarkle]
Good thing God only made the unclean animals untouchable after they died! Otherwise they would have had to hitch their chariots to oxen. Maybe they would have bred a faster breed of battle ox in order to be competitive.
Although the Gentiles seemed to be unclean both dead and alive.
Good thing God only made the unclean animals untouchable after they died! Otherwise they would have had to hitch their chariots to oxen. Maybe they would have bred a faster breed of battle ox in order to be competitive.
Although the Gentiles seemed to be unclean both dead and alive.
