Swine Sausage - Sin?

[chrysostom]

Why would the disciples themselves include the words "Passover must be killed" if Luke knew there would be no killing.
Sorry, killing there was, and eating.

we should eat what we kill

 

[iouae]

we should eat what we kill

Because after the flood God specifically allowed it.

Genesis 9:3
Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

And because it does not give one diabetes like a high carb diet does.

 

[Ktoyou]

It is part of Jewish Law to not eat some types of food. It was not meant for Gentiles. Due to the history of Christianity, and how it grew out of Judaism, you still hear echoes of this.

:up:

 

[Lon]

It's telling that he didn't eat. It means that he understood the true message of the vision. Again, you are making someone a liar by having them do something that would be against their 'freedom' in order to win people. If that isn't the lifestyle that they're supposed to have, why do you believe it is necessary for them to lie to the people they are trying to evangelize?

Part of this is a difference in hermeneutical (how we read and understand the Bible) approach BUT if the analogy didn't apply to animals, it would cast dire results on gentiles as well. Because Peter chose Jews, God had to raise up an Apostle to the gentiles in Paul. "If" animals were figurative, it could have cast 'gentiles' into question as acceptable. It was both the gentile AND his/her food consumption that was deemed okay. Pork didn't make them unacceptable nor keep them from being unacceptable after their conversion. That too, is why Paul, was then chosen as Apostle to the gentiles, though he too was under some of his Jewish observance and regulation.

I will agree that it is a deeper concern, but it is one that goes beyond bondage and freedom-there is the concern of following what God's instructions are. I am seeing a pattern of not knowing what a Judaizer is: someone who forces the Law and circumcision on someone for the sake of salvation. My claim is and has always been that it is not for necessary for salvation.

:up:

Agreed-He freed us from sin and it's ill-effects. He did not free us from what defines sin-1 John 3:4. It does not get simpler.

Yes. Agreed. Eating isn't a sin.

That is, again, not the claim I am making. I have never said that and hope to never say it. I would also point out that the train of thought I am using has been counter to traditional Christian thought for nearly 18 centuries....so, I don't know why you are making that complaint against me.

It wasn't so much that, but addressing this:

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.

At this point I had not 'twisted' scripture and was saying I think legalists, in fact, do. As you seem to be a right and proper gentile, I may yet not understand your words so please ▲read them over ▲ and perhaps correct or enlighten me as to another meaning. I was trying to say "Just the opposite" (not twisting scriptures) and suggesting that any burdensome directive to gentiles is the 'actual' twisting of scripture. You may have to unpack "twisting the Torah and Apostolic writings" quite a bit, but I take that charge very seriously and it is important that you understand I'm reporting what a good many commentaries and revered scholars, as well as my own study believe about these passages. "Twisting" would have me into private interpretations and loose-canon work that I strongly oppose, in me or others. If interpretation isn't plain and well set in the collective mind, it quickly comes under this kind of scrutiny. For that I either have to rigorously defend *orthodoxy or admit where I'm a flake if I depart from it.
I don't believe I did, but I'm very correctable by what is orthodox and orthopraxy against my notions or actions.

And to be clear, the Messiah's statement about the Law and Prophets hanging on those 2 greatest commands is not a supplanting of the instructions in Torah; it is an attempt to again make clear what some of the Pharisees and Sadducees had obfuscated.

Not 'supplanting' but embracing. I know there isn't a lot of 'love' seen in the rules given in Leviticus, but they certainly embrace 'loving God.' Not sure if we are on the same page here or not... :think:

I apologize for being sarcastic and rude in that comment. I have edited the aforementioned post. Again, rebuke accepted.

Thank you for your graciousness and mercies and I'm humbled by them.

*orthodox meaning what is hammered out and accepted as true within the larger Christian body. It 'can' be challenged but only by that wider collective and in their collaboration in seeking God's correction in wisdom in truth. Such would be exceptional and largely unprecedented.

 

[JonahofAkron]

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.

That's simply not true. The Gentiles being thought unclean is the basis for the entire vision-people are not unclean!

It would have cast doubt on a gentile's conversion otherwise.

It wouldn't. The problem was not a biblical one-God did not command anyone to stay away from Gentiles; that's an interpretational view of Shammai.

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.

That's what I'm saying, though: there is a clear disconnect between what God has commanded of His people and what you are saying the message of the vision is supposed to be.

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.

There's the problem, again; you have the apostles lying to win others to Messiah only to 'pull a fast one' on them and tell them they don't have to live the instructions for relationship.

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.

Great point. That is exactly what I'm saying.

Only Americans have to follow American laws. Diplomats have 'immunity.'

It's not even close to the same thing! If you become a citizen of that commonwealth, you are held to the same laws!. Your analogy falls apart.

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.

I suppose I didn't understand which way your analogy was going, but now I get it. I can concede that point. It is reasonable. I would also like to make mention of Romans 11 in that case-if we, as Gentiles, are added to the olive tree that is Israel, we should certainly take the diplomat analogy in new light: if we enter in to a nation, we are responsible for it's laws.

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.

I was tracking until that last line; you are missing the fact that the Jewish people at this point are incredibly racist-the point needed to be made by Paul is that they are not the most important pieces of the puzzle. Paul has to make sense of that for Gentiles and Jews in Romans to make sure they get it. Being Jewish is not equated with the Law.

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.

I understand and agree.

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

Again, agreement.

 

[Ktoyou]

we should eat what we kill

Even prairie dogs and rats?

 

[iouae]

Even prairie dogs and rats?

They do on some of those survival programs.

I want to see their hospital records afterwards.

 

[chrysostom]

Even prairie dogs and rats?

I just killed a fly

 

[Ktoyou]

They do on some of those survival programs.

I want to see their hospital records afterwards.

What survival programs?

 

[iouae]

What survival programs?

Naked and Afraid. They particularly like eating snakes, since these are slow and easy to catch.

 

[Ktoyou]

I just killed a fly

Name a pest. Fly, rat, mice, prairie dog, ect.

 

[chrysostom]

Name a pest. Fly, rat, mice, prairie dog, ect.

ant

 

[Wick Stick]

Name a pest. Fly, rat, mice, prairie dog, ect.

Cruciform. Oh wait...

 

[JonahofAkron]

Part of this is a difference in hermeneutical (how we read and understand the Bible) approach BUT if the analogy didn't apply to animals, it would cast dire results on gentiles as well.

A fair statement. I'm still uncertain about the ramifications myself. I'm feeling out the process with a fair bit of prayer and study.

Because Peter chose Jews, God had to raise up an Apostle to the gentiles in Paul.

I think that God chose Peter to go to the Jews because he was caring the new wine (teaching of Messiah) and it would be effective in change within His people. Paul was obviously chosen as the one for Gentiles because of his knowledge of Torah-he certainly made eloquent cases for us to follow today.

"If" animals were figurative, it could have cast 'gentiles' into question as acceptable.

How? If the basis for living out the relationship of God was called into question, the impact would have been so much more harsh-Paul is claimed to have done the same thing and went out of his way to prove that he never spoke against the Law and I would wager it would be the same thing for Peter.

It was both the gentile AND his/her food consumption that was deemed okay. Pork didn't make them unacceptable nor keep them from being unacceptable after their conversion. That too, is why Paul, was then chosen as Apostle to the gentiles, though he too was under some of his Jewish observance and regulation.
:up:
Yes. Agreed. Eating isn't a sin.

It's so interesting that we have the same information and continue to come up with two very different scenarios. If the Gentiles who were coming into Messiah were already part of the synagogue system (something that history says it true), they may have already been identifying with some of the observance of Torah. I know that is a major reason that the Jerusalem council tells them to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols. James is following a track that is already a precedent for worship of God in the Tanach. I would also like to mention that 'what you eat' could be considered sin....that's why 1 John is important.

It wasn't so much that, but addressing this:

The most confusing...sorry. I meant to post 2 Timothy 3:16. The Torah and the Prophets are the basis for our interpretational views-I know they were for Messiah.

At this point I had not 'twisted' scripture and was saying I think legalists, in fact, do.

I understand. I was still being negative. I apologize for saying that to you.

As you seem to be a right and proper gentile, I may yet not understand your words so please ▲read them over ▲ and perhaps correct or enlighten me as to another meaning. I was trying to say "Just the opposite" (not twisting scriptures) and suggesting that any burdensome directive to gentiles is the 'actual' twisting of scripture. You may have to unpack "twisting the Torah and Apostolic writings" quite a bit, but I take that charge very seriously and it is important that you understand I'm reporting what a good many commentaries and revered scholars, as well as my own study believe about these passages. "Twisting" would have me into private interpretations and loose-canon work that I strongly oppose, in me or others. If interpretation isn't plain and well set in the collective mind, it quickly comes under this kind of scrutiny. For that I either have to rigorously defend *orthodoxy or admit where I'm a flake if I depart from it.

As I let emotion write for me, I pray that you would forgive the grievous error of being a right foul git. I will let the unpacking occur as we continue the conversation...it would be too much to write. Maybe a pm would be the better avenue for that conversation. I'm not sure.

I don't believe I did, but I'm very correctable by what is orthodox and orthopraxy against my notions or actions.

Understood. Thank you. And I agree.

Not 'supplanting' but embracing. I know there isn't a lot of 'love' seen in the rules given in Leviticus, but they certainly embrace 'loving God.' Not sure if we are on the same page here or not... :think:

Interestingly, that's one of the points that I keep coming back to: If Messiah said that the Torah and the Prophets are all about love of God and people, we should try to view the commands from that perspective.

Thank you for your graciousness and mercies and I'm humbled by them.

*orthodox meaning what is hammered out and accepted as true within the larger Christian body. It 'can' be challenged but only by that wider collective and in their collaboration in seeking God's correction in wisdom in truth. Such would be exceptional and largely unprecedented.

Again, thank you for the meaningful dialogue. I know that I'm enjoying it. I will refrain from being childish in my responses-something I will try to do for all on TOL.

 

[Lon]

That's simply not true. The Gentiles being thought unclean is the basis for the entire vision-people are not unclean! It wouldn't. The problem was not a biblical one-God did not command anyone to stay away from Gentiles; that's an interpretational view of Shammai.

Disagree. Peter would not have thought gentiles receiving the Spirit of God would have been possible. Because you agree on the gentile point, it may be of little consequence, other than as it pertains to the assumptions we bring to the scriptures in understanding them. Such could have agreements even though our systems for understanding and interpreting those scriptures aren't in sync.

That's what I'm saying, though: there is a clear disconnect between what God has commanded of His people and what you are saying the message of the vision is supposed to be. There's the problem, again; you have the apostles lying to win others to Messiah only to 'pull a fast one' on them and tell them they don't have to live the instructions for relationship. Great point. That is exactly what I'm saying. It's not even close to the same thing! If you become a citizen of that commonwealth, you are held to the same laws!. Your analogy falls apart.
I suppose I didn't understand which way your analogy was going, but now I get it. I can concede that point. It is reasonable. I would also like to make mention of Romans 11 in that case-if we, as Gentiles, are added to the olive tree that is Israel, we should certainly take the diplomat analogy in new light: if we enter in to a nation, we are responsible for it's laws. I was tracking until that last line; you are missing the fact that the Jewish people at this point are incredibly racist-the point needed to be made by Paul is that they are not the most important pieces of the puzzle. Paul has to make sense of that for Gentiles and Jews in Romans to make sure they get it. Being Jewish is not equated with the Law. I understand and agree.
Again, agreement.

Thanks again. In Him -Lon

 

[iouae]

Excuse me for adding my 2 cents Lon and JofA...

At first Gentiles were recruited from synagogues in say Corinth. These would be used to kosher foods etc.

Later, Paul recruited from public spaces and new converts were predominantly not schooled in the Torah. Hence the one group condemning the eating habits of the other.

 

[Lon]

I would also like to mention that 'what you eat' could be considered sin....that's why 1 John is important.

Can you expound a bit, especially as it is spot on with the OP, I'm thinking. Thanks.

I understand. I was still being negative. I apologize for saying that to you. As I let emotion write for me, I pray that you would forgive the grievous error of being a right foul git.

None taken but your sensitivities and compassion is appreciated and I'm humbled. Thank you.

Interestingly, that's one of the points that I keep coming back to: If Messiah said that the Torah and the Prophets are all about love of God and people, we should try to view the commands from that perspective.

Yes, but such is to be emulated rather than copied. They actually had the 'right' teaching but 'did' it wrong. We have to be careful on several fronts: First not to think what was expected of one is expected of another. Example: I have different expectations and observances between my daughters and my sons. I expect my son, for instance, to assist more with the muscles God has given him.
Second, Christ is the end of a LOT of Jewish observance, especially as it relates as a picture of Christ as they observed and were supposed to anticipate His coming. Third, many of their commands were only, and specifically for them. We'd sin, if we went after Philistines today as gentiles.
Fourth, we have to ever remember that Jews had the orthodoxy, but were blowing it in orthopraxy. We shouldn't emulate that, even when/if there is any mutuality between Jew and gentile. I 'think' it better to discover Christianity through gentile eyes, as gentiles. Adding and trying to discern Jewish custom/practice, and grafting-in, over-complicates what really needs to be basic and New Testament for young believers. I encourage new believers not to read the OT until they have read their NT 5 times through (some exceptions such as Genesis and Psalms etc.). Again, opinion, up to disagreement and scrutiny.

Again, thank you for the meaningful dialogue. I know that I'm enjoying it. I will refrain from being childish in my responses-something I will try to do for all on TOL.

I try and pray for who I am debating with. I'm not sure I'm always great at communication, but at least I know, if inept, that it is covered in prayer and His sovereign graces. That He may be lifted up, and that we might all be edified in Him, -Lon

 

[patrick jane]

Can you expound a bit, especially as it is spot on with the OP, I'm thinking. Thanks.


None taken but your sensitivities and compassion is appreciated and I'm humbled. Thank you.

Yes, but such is to be emulated rather than copied. They actually had the 'right' teaching but 'did' it wrong. We have to be careful on several fronts: First not to think what was expected of one is expected of another. Example: I have different expectations and observances between my daughters and my sons. I expect my son, for instance, to assist more with the muscles God has given him.
Second, Christ is the end of a LOT of Jewish observance, especially as it relates as a picture of Christ as they observed and were supposed to anticipate His coming. Third, many of their commands were only, and specifically for them. We'd sin, if we went after Philistines today as gentiles.

I try and pray for who I am debating with. I'm not sure I'm always great at communication, but at least I know, if inept, that it is covered in prayer and His sovereign graces. That He may be lifted up, and that we might all be edified in Him, -Lon

Well, I for one will not tolerate folks getting along well and engaging in intelligent meaningful dialogue. Where do you and Jonah think you are ? :chuckle:

 

[Lon]

Well, I for one will not tolerate folks getting along well and engaging in intelligent meaningful dialogue. Where do you and Jonah think you are ? :chuckle:

Sorry, back to your regularly scheduled smack programming.

 

[daqq]

Are you saying Jesus did not keep the Passover prior to him becoming the Passover?

Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second. (Hebrews 10:8-9 NKJV)

...and without shedding of blood there is no remission. (Hebrews 9:22 NKJV)
​

Jesus' blood negated the need for animal blood and he instituted the symbols of broken unleavened bread representing his body and wine to symbolize his new testament.

Which ones are true?

Luke 22:15-16 KJV
15. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
16. For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

Luke 22:15-16 YLT
15. and he said unto them, 'With desire I did desire to eat this passover with you before my suffering,
16. for I say to you, that no more may I eat of it till it may be fulfilled in the reign of God.'

Luke 22:15-16 Transliterated
15. kai eipen pros autous epithumia epethumesa touto to pascha fagein meth humon pro tou me pathein
16. lego gar humin hoti ouketi ou-me fago ex autou heos hotou plerothe en te basileia tou Theou
http://biblehub.com/text/luke/22-16.htm

Original Strong's Ref. #3765
Romanized ouketi
Pronounced ook-et'-ee
also (separately) ouk eti {ook et'-ee); from GSN3756 and GSN2089; not yet, no longer:
KJV--after that (not), (not) any more, henceforth (hereafter) not, no longer (more), not as yet (now), now no more (not), yet (not).

Luke 22:15-16
15. And he said unto them, I have longed with desire to eat this Passover with you before my suffering:
16. I tell you that because absolutely not yet shall I eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of Elohim.

Luke 22:15-16 ASV
15. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
16. for I say unto you, I shall not eat it, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

Luke 22:15-16 NJB
15. And he said to them, "I have ardently longed to eat this Passover with you before I suffer;
16. because, I tell you, I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God."

Luke 22:15-16 RSV
15. And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer;
16. for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God."

Luke 22:15-16 Transliterated
15. kai eipen pros autous epithumia epethumesa touto to pascha fagein meth humon pro tou me pathein
16. lego gar humin hoti ou-me fago auto heos hotou plerothe en te basileia tou Theou
http://biblehub.com/text/luke/22-16.htm

Luke 22:15-16
15. And he said unto them, I have longed with desire to eat this Passover with you before my suffering:
16. I tell you that because absolutely not shall I eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of Elohim.

Try not to let your belly decide for you: do what is right in the eyes of Elohim.