Clean and Unclean Meats - Mark 7:19

[RND]

RND,
I'm not classifying anyone with, of, to, in or by any other word of association. I'm stating an example of choosing some of this, a little of that and maybe some of this from OTHER beliefs/religions whose doctrines as a whole we do not support. Neither do you.
Claim of association is not the issue and I'll not get sidetracked with it.

The issue is you're taking some part of another religion with one hand to support your case but with the other hand you don't follow the Messianic Jews in other portions of their belief.

Rick your "generalizations" are interesting no say the least as well as uninformed. I hazard to guess if you even know what a Messianic Jew is.

Many Seventh-day Adventists and Messianic Jews are very close in their general beliefs. We are Sabbath keeping believers in Christ Jesus that understand the Mosaic law and the Sanctuary service in relationship to both the past and future Kingdom to come and are Kosher.

I would consider myself as leaning heavily towards many Messianic teachings, theology and understanding.

I'm quite sure I can find another religion from which I can pick out certain things to refute those certain things believed by Messianic Jews.

So can I. They are unfortunately beliefs that can be found in a majority of churches today. Frankly Rick I bet I could find a few beliefs of yours that are similar to those of Mormon's.

I don't believe what I do because someone over there is doing the same thing that I believe is the right way. Invariably there will be someone, another religion, doing something else but I don't pick what they do because it doesn't support my argument.

Of course, I didn't supply the article I supplied for any other reason than I'm in agreement with the points the author makes, the fact he's a Messianic Jew is secondary. As a Messianic Jew who believes in Jesus Christ his article is spot on. In that sense, and in light of the in relationship to the thread title, this is where you need to focus your energies in my opinion. Was there something in this man's article you find contrary to the truth?

 

[brakelite2]

Making a post gigantic and long does not make it right.
Jesus, and later the apostles, declared all food clean.

We are not under the Mosaic covenant. If we were, you'd have to observe ALL rules of that covenant, including circumcision. Obviously you will never grasp that concept.

Like I said in an earlier post, if it's food, it's clean. There is no such thing as unclean food. If a creature, any creature regardless of whether it's eaten or not, is unclean, then in God's eyes it is not food.

 

[Rick W]

RND,
There's a reason you're not a Messianic Jew. I'll not ask you why since that's besides the point. But there is a reason none-the-less.
And yes, you'll find points in Mormonism I too agree with. I've witnessed quite a bit to them. They speak some truth. But I'll not pick out some of their doctrines to support my own.

The articles you selected may reflect your own beliefs but that does not mean one is compelled to bear opposition to Messianic Judaism as well as yours because one chooses to debate what it is you believe. The Adventist may well endorse many Messianic doctrines but there's a reason Adventists are not Messianic Jews. There are differences. If there weren't then you'd be a Messianic Jew instead of a Seventh Day Adventist. Obviously there's something the Adventist disagrees with concerning Messianic Judaism.

 

[RND]

Making a post gigantic and long does not make it right.
Jesus, and later the apostles, declared all food clean.

We are not under the Mosaic covenant. If we were, you'd have to observe ALL rules of that covenant, including circumcision. Obviously you will never grasp that concept.

Like I said in an earlier post, if it's food, it's clean. There is no such thing as unclean food. If a creature, any creature regardless of whether it's eaten or not, is unclean, then in God's eyes it is not food.

brakelite2 the simplicity of your posts are much appreciated!

 

[RND]

RND,
There's a reason you're not a Messianic Jew. I'll not ask you why since that's besides the point. But there is a reason none-the-less.

No question about that. However, I could be one day.

And yes, you'll find points in Mormonism I too agree with. I've witnessed quite a bit to them. They speak some truth. But I'll not pick out some of their doctrines to support my own.

The fact that Messianics and SDA's are closely associated in a number of beliefs is not a negative as it would be in associating certain protestant beliefs with Mormonism.

The articles you selected may reflect your own beliefs but that does not mean one is compelled to bear opposition to Messianic Judaism as well as yours because one chooses to debate what it is you believe. The Adventist may well endorse many Messianic doctrines but there's a reason Adventists are not Messianic Jews.

Understood. But the fact remains Messianics and Adventists are as close in theological understanding os certain things that Christians are world apart from.

There are differences.

Slight differences.

If there weren't then you'd be a Messianic Jew instead of a Seventh Day Adventist. If there is no distinction then why the different name?

As an SDA I see that as a denomination we should attempt to become much more like Messianics, not the opposite or different. Unfortunately main stream Christianity has done a great injustice to itself by attempting to distance itself from obvious Biblical truth.

 

[Rick W]

Unfortunately main stream Christianity has done a great injustice to itself by attempting to distance itself from obvious Biblical truth.

You were doing fine defending your position up to that point. :biglol

I believe we found the "who" I was looking for in another thread.

 

[Rick W]

As an SDA I see that as a denomination we should attempt to become much more like Messianics, not the opposite or different.

I'm not going to debate that statement but rather take that it into consideration when addressing future posts.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[cyberjosh]

How do we explain the "contradiction" between the orders/commands of the Church council and what Paul later tells us?

"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:

that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."

So when they were sent away, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter." (Acts 15:28-30)

"Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe. " (Acts 16:4)

----------------------------------
Compare:

"...men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude" (1 Timothy 4:3-4)

"I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean" (Romans 14:14)

"However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. " (1 Corinthians 8:8)

-------------------------------------

What about not eating things strangled or with blood, or about things sacrificed to idols? Those were deemed essentials and were delivered as decrees to the Gentile Churches by Paul himself.

~Josh

 

[RND]

What about not eating things strangled or with blood, or about things sacrificed to idols? Those were deemed essentials and were delivered as decrees to the Gentile Churches by Paul himself.

Where does it say that Paul was given the power to declare that only certain Mosaic laws still in effect?

The Jerusalem Council was called to address the specific issue of Gentiles having to prove themselves through works of the Torah PRIOR to salvation (15:1). The Gospel was now going out to a very pagan Gentile world, and these new believers were coming directly into the faith of Israel through the Messiah, no longer having to "come up through the ranks" of Judaism as Gentiles had before. This was a "new way" of doing things, but it was confirmed by God (15:8).

However, it was difficult for many Jews to accept this "instant acceptance of Gentiles," as these converted pagans knew nothing of Torah and brought a lot of terrible practices with them. Once they accepted Yeshua, the Council in fact required these Gentiles to follow certain minimal Torah commands (15:20) in order to fellowship with Jewish (and also other Gentile) believers who already knew and kept Torah. The council gave these basic Torah commands with the understanding that they would learn more of Moses' Torah as they attended Synagogue/Temple. (This is the meaning of Acts 15:21.) Peter's comment in verse 10 is pointing out that if God had commanded perfect Torah observance as a prerequisite to faith, then they all were in jeopardy, as none of them could keep it perfectly prior to faith.

 

[cyberjosh]

Where does it say that Paul was given the power to declare that only certain Mosaic laws still in effect?

With respect, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I just asked. I never even so much as hinted at that, nor did I mention the Mosaic Law. I'm concerned about commands under the New Covenant. You must have misread the intention of my question.

The Jerusalem Council was called to address the specific issue of Gentiles having to prove themselves through works of the Torah PRIOR to salvation (15:1). The Gospel was now going out to a very pagan Gentile world, and these new believers were coming directly into the faith of Israel through the Messiah, no longer having to "come up through the ranks" of Judaism as Gentiles had before. This was a "new way" of doing things, but it was confirmed by God (15:8).

Interesting, I never quite carried over the "you cannot be saved" (15:1) to the final decree as applying to conditions for salvation - not as if those were required either though (for salvation), since faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God - after which works follow. Now I'm going to have to mull over the implications of that though.

However, it was difficult for many Jews to accept this "instant acceptance of Gentiles," as these converted pagans knew nothing of Torah and brought a lot of terrible practices with them. Once they accepted Yeshua, the Council in fact required these Gentiles to follow certain minimal Torah commands (15:20) in order to fellowship with Jewish (and also other Gentile) believers who already knew and kept Torah.

So then you propose that the decrees were no longer binding once taken out of the Jewish context? Because obviously not all the Gentiles were obligated to keep those 4 decrees, by looking at Paul's writings.

~Josh

 

[RND]

So then you propose that the decrees were no longer binding once taken out of the Jewish context?

Jewish context? Was Noah a Jew? Do you think Noah strangled his dinner?

Because obviously not all the Gentiles were obligated to keep those 4 decrees, by looking at Paul's writings.

If you can show me one verse where Paul had no problem with folks who fornicated, ate strangled meat or blood or worshiped idols I'll eat a pork chop dipped in bacon fat.

 

[Vic C.]

With respect, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I just asked. I never even so much as hinted at that, nor did I mention the Mosaic Law. I'm concerned about commands under the New Covenant. You must have misread the intention of my question.

I agree Josh.

RND, lets not use the question of Paul's authority or question his authority as a leverage point in proving your case.

 

[RND]

I agree Josh.

RND, lets not use the question of Paul's authority or question his authority as a leverage point in proving your case.

Why not Vic? This is the exact same argument that is used to say we no longer have to observe the Torah or Tanakh. I'm just reversing the argument to show that in no way would a Torah observant Jew such as Paul would ever dream of changing the Torah or Mitsvah.

Paul, just as ever other writer of the epistles contained in the NT was simply putting things in perspective. Jesus never said "the is no more sabbath" He taught it's proper observance. This list goes on....

BTW Josh in your post here:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=34088&p=412419#p412374

You seemed to be suggesting that Paul was teaching that eating "unclean things" was OK. I'm just asking where Paul would have got the authority to change the Mitsvah?

If eating pigs was bad for Jews (Israelites) how come it was OK for gentiles?

 

[Vic C.]

Fair enough. Let me ask you a couple of question. Do you or do you not believe Paul spoke from Divine authority? Wouldn't you agree that something Supernaturally profound happened to him... more so than most the other Apostles?

Lets look at this from a logical perspective. Why is it that God put such dietary restrictions on the Hebrews way back when?

Ponder that but lets address Josh first because he posted first.

 

[RND]

Fair enough. Let me ask you a couple of question. Do you or do you not believe Paul spoke from Divine authority?

I believe he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the things that he did. However, that's not to suggest that from time to time he gave us his personal opinion.

Wouldn't you agree that something Supernaturally profound happened to him... more so than most the other Apostles?

Sure. But tell me doesn't God have to knock everyone off their horse so they see the light?

Lets look at this from a logical perspective. Why is it that God put such dietary restrictions on the Hebrews way back when?

That's great question. I'll ask another. Was Noah a Hebrew? And I think the answer to your question is 1) mercy and 2) education of others. "We don't eat pigs for this reason...."

Ponder that but lets address Josh first because he posted first.

Pondered. :biglaugh