Swine Sausage - Sin?

[WonderfulLordJesus]

No, turkey sausage is not unclean in itself. Therefore, not a sin to eat of it.

How about dill pickles that aren't kosher? I've always hated to think all Poland is damned.

Almost forgot! Rumor has it that when Christ said the whole law would be fulfilled, He was referring to He fulfilling the whole law, He prophesying what the Lord Jesus, in fact, did. And only He, in the entire history of humanity, fulfilled every jot and tittle of the law, therefore only He able to be the unblemished sacrifice for sin, whose blood can pay for sin and save the sinner. This is what fulfilling the law means in Matthew 5:18, absolutely nothing to do with some reminder you'd better keep the whole law, that is, do the impossible, as only the Lord Jesus did, only He fulfilling the law for all who come broken to the foot of the cross, believing and receiving His righteousness imputed.

Think about it. Wouldn't that be silly, to push the law to lost sinners, none of whom have or could possibly keep the law, to the very man in the audience, the audience then and now, all men sinners throughout all history and failing to keep the whole law, even the purported masters of the law of that day utter failures, the Scribes and Pharisees? (The worst failures, according to the Lord Jesus, right in there with the devil, as their behavior even proved.) Your reading of that scripture makes no common sense. Wouldn't it be ridiculous for the Lord Jesus to die for the sins of others, if just a reminder to eat turkey sausage would have satisfied the justice of a Holy God, where it's not baseball, rather one sin and you're out of the Garden, the walking dead?

And how are you, who do not repent and believe in the blood of the Lord Jesus, going to pay for your sins and redeem yourselves from the wrath of God and hell, when you stand before that Holy God, having rejected His grace?

 

[fzappa13]

I think PJ pointed to the right scriptures but didn't elaborate and I understand why ... it shouldn't be necessary. ALL LEVITICAL ORDINANCES ARE SYMBOLIC AND PROPHETIC.

The symbolic/prophetic meaning of clean and unclean (jew/gentile) was no longer significant at the point of Christ's sacrifice. "What God hath cleansed call though not common." A sacrifice sufficient once for any and all who would embrace it, Jew and Gentile alike. That's pretty plain ... except where the spirit of contention continues to flourish. Said spirit being alive and well in this joint.

 

[JonahofAkron]

I will admit to confusion as to which OT commands to keep.
The best way I have resolved this for myself is to keep the ones which Christ definitely kept. I do this because where I feel confused about "the word" (meaning the Bible), I just have to look at "the Word" or Jesus as a living interpretation of that word.

For instance, I don't see Jesus sacrificing any animal, and so I don't.

Nice.

 

[iouae]

The symbolic/prophetic meaning of clean and unclean (jew/gentile) was no longer significant at the point of Christ's sacrifice.

Consider this. If a person ate something unclean, then they had to wash and were unclean until sunset.

The only consequence of being unclean was that you could not enter the Temple while unclean.

Now if there is no Temple, what consequence is there to being unclean?

Thus I would instead say "The symbolic/prophetic meaning of clean and unclean (jew/gentile) was no longer significant at the point of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem".

Even after Christ's sacrifice, you would not have been allowed into "church" (the temple) if you were unclean.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Tell me Daqq, is the Decalogue a sum of ten ordinances or not? If that's not enough, let me prove otherwise that Paul meant the Decalogue. Read Rom. 7:1-7. That's an allegory of Paul about the widow who got freedom from the Law with the death of her husband. And Paul mean with that allegory our freedom of the Law with the death of Jesus. If you don't believe, read verse 7 and tell me where is it written "Thou shall not covet" if not in the Decalogue?

If Paul meant freedom from obeying the Law in Romans 7:1-7, he would not also have written this:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

I don't see Jesus sacrificing any animal, and so I don't.

Deuteronomy 16:16 16 Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the Lord empty:​

So, what do you suppose Jesus did to fulfill this commandment?

 

[daqq]

Tell me Daqq, is the Decalogue a sum of ten ordinances or not? If that's not enough, let me prove otherwise that Paul meant the Decalogue. Read Rom. 7:1-7. That's an allegory of Paul about the widow who got freedom from the Law with the death of her husband. And Paul mean with that allegory our freedom of the Law with the death of Jesus. If you don't believe, read verse 7 and tell me where is it written "Thou shall not covet" if not in the Decalogue?

It is not freedom from the whole Torah because of the death of her husband but rather freedom from the ordinances concerning fidelity to her counterpart-man because when her husband dies she is no longer under those particular ordinances, (that is common sense). Likewise in this passage we must remember that the two become one flesh and therefore the woman figuratively speaking becomes her man:

Romans 7:1-4
1. Know you not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law) how that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?
2. For the woman under a man is bound by the law to her man so long as he lives; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband, [that is, the ordinances concerning her husband].
3. So then if, while her husband lives, she becomes another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; [that particular set of laws-ordinances] so that she is no adulteress, though she become another man.
4. Wherefore, my brethren, you also are become dead by the law through the body of Messiah: toward the becoming of you another, to the rising from the dead, so that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

I know most will probably not agree with my understanding of this passage but it is what it is and there it is. No one becomes dead to the Law except by passing through it and allowing the flesh commands, (Sinai) to slay the old man which is carnal, (mortify your "members" which are upon your earth as Paul says, and likewise, "mortify the deeds of the body" and walk according to the Spirit, [the Testimony of Yeshua]). Paul alludes to this at the end of the same passage where he states that he serves both the "Torah of sin", (Mount Sinai which physical) when it comes to the flesh, and that he serves the "Torah of Elohim", (Mount Horeb which is supernal) when it comes to the mind:

Romans 7:14-25 KJV
14. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25. I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; [Horeb] but with the flesh the law of sin [Sinai].

Paul clearly states that he serves both and therefore neither is "abolished".

 

[OCTOBER23]

Genuine & Daqq

YOU GUYS ARE FINALLY THINKING LIKE ME - GOOD SHOW !

The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?

Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,

nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers,

nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

There is no sin in eating a ground turkey patty seasoned with sage.

I also sprinkle cayenne on my turkey patties.

Thank you for that sage advice!

 

[iouae]

Deuteronomy 16:16 16 Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the Lord empty:​

So, what do you suppose Jesus did to fulfill this commandment?

He tithed.

 

[genuineoriginal]

He tithed.

That would be difficult to prove, considering there is no record of Jesus growing crops or raising herds.
If there is no increase, then there is nothing to tithe.

However, another passage of the same commandment specifically mentions offering the blood of the sacrifice.

Exodus 23:14-19 14 Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year. 15 Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread: (thou shalt eat unleavened bread seven days, as I commanded thee, in the time appointed of the month Abib; for in it thou camest out from Egypt: and none shall appear before me empty: ) 16 And the feast of harvest, the firstfruits of thy labours, which thou hast sown in the field: and the feast of ingathering, which is in the end of the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field. 17 Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God. 18 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the fat of my sacrifice remain until the morning. 19 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.​

 

[jamie]

Jesus was not a farmer or rancher so he didn't tithe. Neither did Paul.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Jesus was not a farmer or rancher so he didn't tithe. Neither did Paul.

This touches on something you seldom see, actually, the opposite. People talk of the Lord and the law as if He is under the law. How much of the law involves dealing with a sinful people, in a wider sinful world, and, in fact, the Old Testament pointing to Jesus Christ, the Alpha and Omega, the solution, where the law fails? Christ is without sin, doesn't have problems with the law. Christ is the "I am," the Lord God, the Creator and Giver of the law! As He pointed out, He is Lord of the sabbath day, Matthew 12:8, greater than ordinances, greater than the temple. God is God, not man. If God wishes to abolish sabbaths, He is sovereign. If God wishes to establish a new covenant, He is sovereign. So, whenever I see people saying Christ had to be this or that, it just seems to me we don't really have any place or wisdom to evaluate what God should or should not do. Hypothetically, if the Lord said, for instance, "Tithing is for you, not God," that would be it. He is the Lord, and this is His sovereign right, and not for any man to judge.

 

[daqq]

This touches on something you seldom see, actually, the opposite. People talk of the Lord and the law as if He is under the law. How much of the law involves dealing with a sinful people, in a wider sinful world, and, in fact, the Old Testament pointing to Jesus Christ, the Alpha and Omega, the solution, where the law fails? Christ is without sin, doesn't have problems with the law. Christ is the "I am," the Lord God, the Creator and Giver of the law! As He pointed out, He is Lord of the sabbath day, Matthew 12:8, greater than ordinances, greater than the temple. God is God, not man. If God wishes to abolish sabbaths, He is sovereign. If God wishes to establish a new covenant, He is sovereign. So, whenever I see people saying Christ had to be this or that, it just seems to me we don't really have any place or wisdom to evaluate what God should or should not do. Hypothetically, if the Lord said, for instance, "Tithing is for you, not God," that would be it. He is the Lord, and this is His sovereign right, and not for any man to judge.

So essentially your version of God is a God who made everlasting and eternal covenants, promises, and commandments, such as even the Sabbath, told His people to remember the Sabbath, sanctify it, and keep it holy, and then abolished all of it when he came in the flesh. This is precisely the folly of modern mainstream theology in that it first claims Yeshua to be "equal to the Father" and then employs false teachings attributed to Yeshua so as to nullify the commandments of the Father. But to each his or her own I suppose.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

So essentially your version of God is a God who made everlasting and eternal covenants, promises, and commandments, such as even the Sabbath, told His people to remember the Sabbath, sanctify it, and keep it holy, and then abolished all of it when he came in the flesh. This is precisely the folly of modern mainstream theology in that it first claims Yeshua to be "equal to the Father" and then employs false teachings attributed to Yeshua so as to nullify the commandments of the Father. But to each his or her own I suppose.

There was nothing said as you characterize it. Please find somebody else to be gratuitously argumentative with, put words in the mouth of, perhaps who also shares your low reading comprehension skills. (It also couldn't hurt if you learned there are many profound differences between the new and old covenants, just as it may one day dawn upon you that there are not too many Old Testament Jews hanging around anymore.) I don't do the troll gig, never even threw food around much as a baby. Have a nice day.

 

[daqq]

There was nothing said as you characterize it. Please find somebody else to be gratuitously argumentative with, put words in the mouth of, perhaps who also shares your low reading comprehension skills. (It also couldn't hurt if you learned there are many profound differences between the new and old covenants, just as it may one day dawn upon you that there are not too many Old Testament Jews hanging around anymore.) I don't do the troll gig, never even threw food around much as a baby. Have a nice day.

Your statement, which I highlighted in yellow, clearly implies that Yeshua as Master of Shabbat can "abolish sabbaths" if he wants to. The characterization that I responded to was a characterization that was created on your own part from your own words. Yeshua as a member of tribe Yhudah would never "abolish Sabbaths" as you have implied. You may not have actually said such a thing in straightforward language but that is the about only conclusion one may take from your words. However there is no place that even remotely suggests what you have suggested. You are essentially implying that Yeshua has said and done certain things that are unsupported by what is written; and this is because of your misunderstanding of Paul, and for placing those misunderstood words of Paul above the more clear teachings of Messiah on matters of the Law. If you do not interpret the words of Paul through the Testimony of Yeshua, (first and foremost) then you will not understand Paul. Likewise if you do not have a decent understanding of Torah neither will you understand the Testimony of Yeshua. This is precisely how you end up in the position where you have arrived, that is, suggesting as you do that God, who clearly proclaims that He does not change, has now abolished what He said was eternal and everlasting. In addition to all of this your response to me personally is rather immature with the "troll" insinuation so you have a nice day too.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

If you do not interpret the words of Paul through the Testimony of Yeshua, (first and foremost) then you will not understand Paul.

:cheers:

 

[daqq]

:cheers:

:thumb: Paul understands Torah through the "new lenses" of Messiah:
And he follows Messiah to the "T".

 

[jamie]

If you do not interpret the words of Paul through the Testimony of Yeshua, (first and foremost) then you will not understand Paul. Likewise if you do not have a decent understanding of Torah neither will you understand the Testimony of Yeshua.

Indeed. :thumb:

 

[fzappa13]

Consider this. If a person ate something unclean, then they had to wash and were unclean until sunset.

The only consequence of being unclean was that you could not enter the Temple while unclean.

Now if there is no Temple, what consequence is there to being unclean?

Thus I would instead say "The symbolic/prophetic meaning of clean and unclean (jew/gentile) was no longer significant at the point of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem".

Even after Christ's sacrifice, you would not have been allowed into "church" (the temple) if you were unclean.

Do not confuse the temple with the light thereof ... there is a very important difference.