Wick Stick
Well-known member
Obviously we feed them to the cows, or other animals that are "clean" to eat.
Do I hafta think of everything? :dizzy:
Swine Sausage - Sin?
- Thread starter 6days
- Start date
Do I hafta think of everything? :dizzy:
Lon
Well-known member
:nono: Acts, while talking about gentiles, was ALSO talking about what Peter could eat. In FACT, the Spirit said "DON'T" call it unclean when Peter said "No!" It is a great mistake to misread those verses and not get the point Jesus and the disciples were making.
JonahofAkron
New member
In Greek, the word telos can also mean goal or end; it certainly would make more sense for the goal of Torah to be Messiah-especially considering that Jesus lived the Torah out perfectly (though you may not share that idea).
Lon
Well-known member
And they and you are wrong. It clearly talks about "what God has called clean" which was against the whole Jewish system and custom. The point is and was, that legalists miss the point and "think" what enters a man makes him unclean :doh: You guys are a convoluted Judaized mess.
I twisted nothing. I "GAVE" verses. You guys are the weirdos. Scripture alone apparently doesn't suffice for you:
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
1Ti 4:2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
1Ti 4:3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
1Ti 4:5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
1Ti 4:6 If you put these things before the brothers [like I am attempting to do here], you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed.
1Ti 4:7 Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness;
JonahofAkron
New member
Wow. That misreading thing is exactly what you're doing. For the writer of Acts to drop in a teaching about food in an area that would be completely unrelated doesn't fit what we understand of the writer and their ability to write the narratives. It is strictly about the Gentiles being included in the Spirit-something of this magnitude should be separate from a teaching on food because it is one of the largest scandals of the Jewish Gospel....but, for some reason you want to tack some antinomian ideas into a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy.....go figure.
JonahofAkron
New member
Hypotheticals, guys, hypotheticals.
achduke
Active member
That would be only true if you separate Gentiles from Israel. I do not see that they are separate.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
1 Corinthians 12-13
12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Even in Moses time any foriegners/strangers were grafted in and had to obey the same laws.
Exodus 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
Ben Masada
New member
Right, the goal of Torah is the Messiah but, Jesus was not the Messiah. The Messiah cannot be an individual. The individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation? I don't think so. The Messiah is not to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:35-37) Besides, the Messiah means the anointed one of the Lord. If you read Prophet Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord, aka Israel the Jewish People. Jesus was part of the Messiah as he was part of Israel for 33 years of his life but, an individual Messiah is out of cogitation.
JonahofAkron
New member
I
Please don't misconstrue my writing as calling you out for not doing something; that is legalism. I am simply answering the concerning trend of antinomianism in the Body of Messiah.
Edit : took out disrespectful and sarcastic speech that didn't further my point. Rebuke accepted.
You don't find it the least bit strange to have God completely disintegrate the instructions that He gave as the basis for proper relationship with Him?....or are you a fan of believing that He gave us the Torah in order to show us how much we couldn't keep it? Either way, you make Him a liar.
Ok. Cool. And you still aren't answering the larger questions that your logic brings: Was Paul a liar? Is God a liar?
Please don't misconstrue my writing as calling you out for not doing something; that is legalism. I am simply answering the concerning trend of antinomianism in the Body of Messiah.
Yep. Twisted. You have done it several times concerning the Torah and apostolic writings, instead of letting the relationship of the Messiah and the Torah dictate from the outset what your relationship should be to it....not to mention Paul's writing about it in 2 Timothy 3:15.
Edit : took out disrespectful and sarcastic speech that didn't further my point. Rebuke accepted.
Last edited:
JonahofAkron
New member
I thought that would be your sticking point. Thanks for corroborating the key basis for what I was trying to get at, though. That was nice of you. I will have to discuss your points further elsewhere as this is specifically about the food.
Lon
Well-known member
That would explain a lot. I see more the opposite: that Jews need Christ rather than us needing Jewish laws. We learn 'from' Jewish writings but aren't to be overtly caught in the letter of the Law. As this was absolutely a problem in the Apostle's day, it should be no surprise that we are as divided today over the matter. I believe the lord-it-over crowd to be the ones who miss the forest for the trees. The Sabbath was made for man, and not man the Sabbath. While I have strong ties to Puritan Christianity, I am much more conscious of not hanging milestones nor Judaizing the next generation of Christians. It is, imo, wrong to teach scripture observance that doesn't carefully weigh the whole counsel of God. In Acts, the Jewish council tried very hard to keep gentiles from legalism. The Kingdom of God is NOT eating and drinking. Romans 14:12-23
JonahofAkron
New member
Great point. I like that.
Again, I would agree.
This is most definitely the case.
But regardless, the Sabbath was had. Even though Messiah utilized for healing at times, that still wouldn't be considered work in the way we use it today. Let's oversimplify to the point of explaining away.
Again, I agree. I don't believe that I have left out the whole counsel of God in making these distinctions.
Lon
Well-known member
No, I do not. I see a great distinction between a Jewish audience and a gentile one. The 'one' was "in Christ." To overtly Judaize based on that verse is the actual problem. It is what Galatians is addressing. Of course there was and is, Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free. Only "in Christ" are there none. If you take that too far, your theology would be out of whack.
Neither. Peter never did eat but he 'could' have at that point. Why didn't he? Well, a couple of very good reasons. The 'first' was t
hat he was an apostle to one particular group. Remember?
As I said, this goes deeper in disagreement than a surface level. It really is about this issue of who is bound and who is set free and my concern is Judaizing which is mentioned specifically in many scriptures. Antinomial? Not as much, though certainly mentioned a few times, usually "within" Jewish concern and customs. Conversely, it is wise to pay attention to Galatians as well as clear examples of contention between the Apostles regarding the matter. Something very important transpired that is incredibly debilitating, if missed. Galatians 5:1
Just the opposite. I believe it is the lord-it-over crowd that gets this incredibly wrong. It is legalism for no other reason that "that's the way we have always done it." ALL the law and the prophets hang ONLY on loving God and Loving neighbor. All 'ritual' was either for health or, at the time, having something to do with devotion to God and man.
Hate? Where? If you are apt to teach, stand as a man and show it. If you are apt to debate, do so without your emotions getting in the way. This is an important issue and it needs to be discussed in such a manner that God is glorified and His truth is upheld. I will contend for the faith, in good faith, believing that I am serving both Him and men (including you). When that no longer functions, I will redress the concern at that time, I take the two great commands to heart and endeavor always, to serve Him and serve His. I pray such finds me a faithful servant of both you and Him. Scripture calls us to balance. -Lon
achduke
Active member
Salvation is not dependant on works. There were groups that tried to influence the apostles with works based salvation. Still once we are saved we are led to be obedient. The groups that taught circumcision saved could lead others to believe once they were circumcised they would have been saved. This is not true. The holy spirit may lead you to physical circumcision but if you have the Holy Spirit guiding them most probably you are saved.
Ben Masada
New member
True, but, for two reasons I have found freedom to pause from the swine sausage sin. First, you yourself crashed the thread by mentioning Jesus as the Messiah and, second, the sin from eating swine sausage is for Jews and not for Christians.
Lon,
re: "Acts, while talking about gentiles, was ALSO talking about what Peter could eat. In FACT, the Spirit said 'DON'T' call it unclean when Peter said 'No!' It is a great mistake to misread those verses..."
Assuming you're referring to the animals in the sheet by the word "it, I'm not aware where the Lord told Peter not to call them unclean. What do you have in mind?
re: "Acts, while talking about gentiles, was ALSO talking about what Peter could eat. In FACT, the Spirit said 'DON'T' call it unclean when Peter said 'No!' It is a great mistake to misread those verses..."
Assuming you're referring to the animals in the sheet by the word "it, I'm not aware where the Lord told Peter not to call them unclean. What do you have in mind?
Lon
Well-known member
I'm just sad you don't see it. It is, in fact true, that the Spirit taught both, at the same time, one confirming strongly, the other. It HAD to be true about both or the point COULDN'T have been made. It would have cast doubt on a gentile's conversion otherwise. In this case, it is very clear Peter was hungry and that the Spirit told him that his refusal, before ever even knowing about the gentile connection, was about food. The Spirit told him in no uncertain terms, NOT to call unclean what the Spirit called clean. Was it undoing Jewish law? No, absolutely not. Peter would still, as apostle to the Jews, observe Jewish custom, as was necessary to reach them for Christ. "He" had no other choice. But, God was teaching you and I something in that passage as well AND it was very much about what made gentiles acceptable. See, they were the ones who did eat those meats and the Spirit specifically told Peter that they were clean. Why? Because the kingdom of heaven is about loving God and loving man, not following Jewish do's and don'ts and getting caught up in legalism. The only point of law, is to help us do the right things for the right reasons. Only Americans have to follow American laws. Diplomats have 'immunity.'
It does not make them less for not having to observe or laws or not becoming US citizens. That isn't the purpose of diplomats. Likewise, it is important to see distinction between Jews and gentiles. We are one in Christ, but you do not have to be a Jew to be in God's favor. THAT is what it means that there is no longer Jew or Gentile, male or female. It literally means there is no advantage to following Jewish law or trying to become Judaized. THAT is what it means that we are all one in Christ. It very much means we must trust ONLY in the work of Christ, whoever we are. Do I love my poor Judaized brothers? Yes. I'm just sad to see legalism clouding the prime directive to Love God and Love man and seeing legalities get in the way of a complete trust in Christ alone.
For this concern, I believe God more sovereign than the legal guy understands or allows. I believe Ephesians 2:10, that I am in a relationship that ISN'T one-sided. God will do His part and He is much more powerful than I am. If it is one-sided, it is all Christ, and my efforts are negligible. In Psalm 103, David sees the same thing, that we are frail and God is God. "My part" is more about trust than worrying about what I'm doing wrong or right. My job is to love God and love man as best as I can and to learn and grow in that endeavor. Scripture helps me see avenues for doing so, as well as examining my weaknesses in doing so that I may improve, but I am yet God's workmanship, and that means a LOT more God than me, even when it concerns myself. I'm a creature, He, the Owner Creator. - Lon
Lon
Well-known member
"Unclean animals." Peter had no idea of gentile analogy at the time. The Spirit was telling him that all animals were clean AND that gentiles eating them were cleaned in Christ, despite their supposed 'evil-pork-eating ways.' This passage HAD to be both or it couldn't have been either and gentiles would still be in sin and only Jews would be saved, to this day. Both, then, had to equally be true from this passage or none of it would be.
What I posted was the truth from the Scripture and, yes, it is absolutely related. All you are doing is propagating a lie because that is all the carnal minded man can do because he cannot see the things of Elohim. The point which was made in my previous post is also true of Cornelius in that he was indeed "slain" and his testimony was then taken to the brethren in Judea, (Acts 11:1) and Peter expounded his testimony to the brethren, and they received it, "ate" or partook of it, and glorified God, (Acts 11:18). They ate from the testimony of a gentile who was himself already in the process of becoming joined to the the house of Judah, (and likewise Cornelius and his household knew the immersion of Yochanan, Acts 10:37, Acts 11:16). Do you not know what it means when an Angel appears in your house and commands you what to do to be saved, (Acts 10:1-6)? What, your favorite books from your favorite teachers do not include any information about this event in your version of what you call "salvation"? And again does you version of the gospel include the water immersion of Yochanan? Have you also ignored that? Yeshua clearly tells you that you must be born of water first and then the Spirit. You have likewise ignored the immersion of Yochanan which is the washing of water into the Word; the water immersion into the Testimony of the Prophets and Torah, and therefore you do not believe what is written in those writings applies to yourself. The carnal minded man walks according to his belly just as the serpent was cursed to do in the very beginning. The carnal minded man must therefore be slain, but fear not, (lol) for if indeed you overcome in that day it will turn out for you as a testimony. Then shall your words be worthy of consumption. But I warn you, in that day six men will come by way of the higher gate:
Acts 11:12
12. And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the house of the man:
And these "six brethren" carry slaughter weapons in their hands, (Ezekiel 9:2).
Yes, Rise up Peter, Slay, and eat! O blind man what will you do in that day? :chuckle:
There are a few exceptions; isolated incidents.