The Meat Of The Word

[stovebolts]

Do you think my post #62 was of the spirit of condemnation?

Not to begin with. Truth be told, I had not read the portion addressed to Hidden In Him until now. I only read the portion addressed to for his glory. Having read the entirety of 62, I take back my earlier comment about you creating confusion by concealing a portion of that passage. Had I read what you addressed to the other poster I would not have falsely accused you of this.

Now, to address your question. The tone of your post did indeed change when you redirected your efforts to for his glory. Your reply to her was in the negative which automatically would put anyone on the defense.

In post 67 she is honest and asks you for further explanation. In 70 you deny her and. Continue to reiterate the idea that the meat is spoiled from gluttony.

When the disciples of Jesus asks for an explanation, he willingly tells them. You, on the other hand refuse. This is not the way of Jesus.

What is it going to take for the spirit within you to shift toward reconciliation?

 

[DavidT]

Over the last few years, I've heard several theories of what the expression "the meat of the word" actually means. My own is that it is a reference to teachings on enduring sufferings for Christ's sake, and for the gospels. This interpretation is based on and supported by the following passages of scripture. All are free to respond with their thoughts.
....

Umm....

It's really not that. The "strong meat" in Hebrews 5 is contrasted to the 'milk' of The Word, like what Lord Jesus said with the parable of new wine in old bottles (actually wineskins). You don't put newly fermenting wine in old wineskins, lest they break. You instead put new wine in new wineskins, so both are preserved. The meaning is that the old wineskins represent those still on the milk of God's Word, still not having become teachers. Those are comfortable in their old traditions, so they don't seek to expand to the "strong meat". It's like those just happen to attend Church all their life without really cracking open God's Word. Just go and gather in fellowship, and put your dues in the plate, and go home back to your own business, try to be good, try to do good, without really knowing all the warnings against deception that Christ gave us.

So what's one of God's teachings in His Word that is of the "strong meat"? The "mystery of iniquity" that Apostle Paul mentioned in passing in 2 Thessalonians 2 is one of them. It is about this...

Jude 3-4
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
KJV

Those are about the "mystery of iniquity", a certain group of people that God had ordained to work against Him and His Son. It is what Apostle John was also talking about with the idea of "many antichrists". In The Old Testament, those were called the "workers of iniquity". Those general sounding terms are easy to just read on through and not think anything about it, unless you stop and actually think of the history of the crept in unawares like the Canaanites that crept in among Israel per Judges 2 and 3, and Joshua 9, etc.; and then Lord Jesus' parable about the "tares" in Matthew 13 which is also about these.

2 Peter 2:1
2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord That bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
KJV

The very first incident of these crept in unawares was actually with Cain who was the first murderer. That's why Jude 11 even mentions about those who go the way of Cain.

THAT... subject certainly is of the "strong meat" of God's Word. The Churches aren't going to teach it, and when they try to, they wind misapplying upon everyone instead of focusing on the actual written Scripture about a certain group of crept in unawares that God literally ORDAINED to that condemnation. Can those be saved by Jesus? Yes, of course IF... they will turn to Him and follow Him. But these, like Apostle Peter and Jude said, as "brute beasts", for this present world time, are "made to be taken and destroyed"! (2 Peter 2:12; Jude 10).

 

[ezrider]

Now, to address your question. The tone of your post did indeed change when you redirected your efforts to for his glory. Your reply to her was in the negative which automatically would put anyone on the defense.

I'm sorry to say that you have once again misjudged my part in this conversation, including my first post. My efforts in that post were not redirected toward for_his_glory, the were directed at the comment of "feast like a glutton" and I continued to use it in the context of the first part of the post, the thought of meat being able to make us sick. Posted some applicable scripture from Psalms, then wrapped it up discussing the Bread. All in the context of the entirety of the post, as my first words were; interesting subject, but don't forget the bread!

I know that she is your friend and it is your natural inclination to want to defend her, but before you make these comments, maybe you should actually take the time to read all the dialog. Her first response to me was that I did not understand what she was saying. That should tell you something, shouldn't it? Then in a follow up post she tries to remind me that we are not talking about literal meat and milk. Tell me, what am I supposed to make of that? And you think my first reply to her was negative. Form her last post to me she still thinks I'm talking about literal milk and meat.

In post 67 she is honest and asks you for further explanation. In 70 you deny her and. Continue to reiterate the idea that the meat is spoiled from gluttony.

Again you have not seen this clearly. She was not honest in asking me for further explanation. She did not seek clarification or seek and explanation of anything I had actually written. She wanted me to explain what the scripture about not seething a kid in his mothers milk had to with her commentary about the milk and meat, she wanted me to explain how it fit in with her narrative. This is what I refused to answer. I then followed that up again asking her what was the question I asked in my first post concerning my use of that scripture, trying to figure out what it was she did not understand.

When the disciples of Jesus asks for an explanation, he willingly tells them. You, on the other hand refuse. This is not the way of Jesus.

I'm sorry, but you act as if I never gave or tried giving for_his_glory and explanation for my use of that scripture in the context of my post. I refused to explain how that scripture fit in with her narrative, but I continued to explain how it fit in with the context of my narrative. I followed it again up with further explanation in post #80, but be we both know what her response to that one was, as a moderator she deleted it. And you accuse me of refusing?

Jesus took the time to explain himself to the disciples that were more interested in the explanation of the words that HE said.

Not to begin with. Truth be told, I had not read the portion addressed to Hidden In Him until now. I only read the portion addressed to for his glory. Having read the entirety of 62, I take back my earlier comment about you creating confusion by concealing a portion of that passage. Had I read what you addressed to the other poster I would not have falsely accused you of this.

What is it going to take for the spirit within you to shift toward reconciliation?

Perhaps you have misjudged this as well? You have continued to accuse me of further things of which I responded to in this post. It seems as though you are the one coming at me with a spirit of condemnation now, else you wouldn't react with a spirit of the accuser at the same time. Now tell me, what was it I actually accused for_his_glory of?

 

[Hidden In Him]

It's really not that. The "strong meat" in Hebrews 5 is contrasted to the 'milk' of The Word, like what Lord Jesus said with the parable of new wine in old bottles (actually wineskins). You don't put newly fermenting wine in old wineskins, lest they break. You instead put new wine in new wineskins, so both are preserved. The meaning is that the old wineskins represent those still on the milk of God's Word, still not having become teachers.

Greetings, David.

I take the old wine to be the teachings of Judaism before Christ, and the new wine to be the teachings our Lord was presenting. This seems to fit the context best. But in response, to hold the position that you do, you would have to assent that John the Baptist's teachings were spiritual "milk", since He likened John's teachings to old wine in Matthew. Wouldn't not cracking open one's Bible to be a manifestation of a lack of repentance? This is what John's preaching was primarily about?

14 Then the disciples of John came to Him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but Your disciples do not fast?” 15 And Jesus said to them, “Can the friends of the bridegroom mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast. 16 No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and the tear is made worse. 17 Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”

God bless,
- H

 

[stovebolts]

I'm sorry to say that you have once again misjudged my part in this conversation,

And it is possible you misjudged mine, as well as #67

Her first response to me was that I did not understand what she was saying.

Coerrect. Remember, you quoted her first. You called her out.

My efforts in that post were not redirected toward @for_his_glory, the were directed at the comment of "feast like a glutton" and I continued to use it in the context of the first part of the post, the thought of meat being able to make us sick.

I’m not buying they weren’t directed at her. You never once said that to her and when she said you misunderstood her, you had a chance to clarify that it wasn’t directed at her and you did not use it. And here is why.

Her first response to me was that I did not understand what she was saying. That should tell you something, shouldn't it? Then in a follow up post she tries to remind me that we are not talking about literal meat and milk. Tell me, what am I supposed to make of that?

It tells me she took it the same way I did. When she used the word glutton, it wasn’t in a sinful way. She even admitted that it wasn’t the best word to use. On two occasions you had an opportunity to reconcile and both instances you choose not to.

Matthew 5:23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

The above commandment is an elementary teaching. It is milk, not meat. Not one time did you attempt to reconcile.

I am removing you from this thread for 7 days and you will not be allowed to post.

If you have a disagreement with this, you can create a private thread in the Talk with the staff forum.

We want to be a community that thinks the best of others and seeks reconciliation when we realize we’ve offended our brother or sister in Christ. As such, I do hope you open a thread in the Talk With The Staff forum and we can resolve this and put it behind us.

Grace and peace.

 

[DavidT]

Greetings, David.

I take the old wine to be the teachings of Judaism before Christ, and the new wine to be the teachings our Lord was presenting. This seems to fit the context best. But in response, to hold the position that you do, you would have to assent that John the Baptist's teachings were spiritual "milk", since He likened John's teachings to old wine in Matthew. Wouldn't not cracking open one's Bible to be a manifestation of a lack of repentance? This is what John's preaching was primarily about?

14 Then the disciples of John came to Him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but Your disciples do not fast?” 15 And Jesus said to them, “Can the friends of the bridegroom mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast. 16 No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and the tear is made worse. 17 Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”

God bless,
- H

The idea about the old bottles you are presenting is actually from a 'strictly' New Testament perspective, and not from a whole Bible perspective. The "new wine" idea was used in the Old Testament prophets also as a spiritual metaphor pointing to God's Truth and not being in deception (see Joel 1). This is why in Revelation 6 on the 3rd Seal it says to "hurt not the oil and the wine", because those are symbols for God's Truth through His Son. The oil in the lamps of the ten virgins represents The Holy Spirit Who is sent to teach us all things. And the wine is a symbol for a pure fluid representing Christ and His Word. So the idea there is those things are not to be hurt for Christ's elect at the end. And that is how this relates to those on the 'milk' of God's Word vs. those on the "strong meat" that have their senses exercised to be able to discern good and evil. And thus Christ's Message about the "tares" of Matthew 13, and Paul's Message about the "mystery of iniquity" are "strong meat" subjects.

 

[Hidden In Him]

The idea about the old bottles you are presenting is actually from a 'strictly' New Testament perspective, and not from a whole Bible perspective. The "new wine" idea was used in the Old Testament prophets also as a spiritual metaphor pointing to God's Truth and not being in deception (see Joel 1).

Your application of the new wine in Joel 1 is indeed accurate, but it does not disqualify it from being used in reference to New Testament revelation as opposed to Old Testament teaching. In fact, it actually confirms it.

As for your other uses, we disagree on those, but I'm not sure it's worth going into.

God bless,
Hidden

 

[Prycejosh1987]

The meat of the word are the gospels to me.

 

[DavidT]

Your application of the new wine in Joel 1 is indeed accurate, but it does not disqualify it from being used in reference to New Testament revelation as opposed to Old Testament teaching. In fact, it actually confirms it.

As for your other uses, we disagree on those, but I'm not sure it's worth going into.

God bless,
Hidden

Well, the reason why I disagree is because the "milk" idea being applied in Hebrews 5 was aimed at believers on Christ that should have been on the "strong meat", which had nothing to with orthodox Jews. Hebrews 5 about the "strong meat" was actually where I originally was pulling from...

Heb 5:12-14
12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
KJV

 

[eddif]

The meat of the word are the gospels to me.

Plural Gospels? I will look.

eddif

 

[eddif]

Plural Gospels? I will look.

eddif

Galatians 1:6 kjv
6. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

23. But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed
24. And they glorified God in me

eddif

 

[for_his_glory]

Plural Gospels? I will look.

eddif

The four Gospels consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

[eddif]

The meat of the word are the gospels to me.

2 Timothy 3:16 kjv
16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I could be misunderstanding you. I tend to think the whole Bible has meat sprinkled through out. If it is applied to Jesus it is meat. We do eat his body and drink his blood.

I am sure that the Gospels contain a lot, but when you start dealing with the one new man the other books help. Are there hints in the Gospels? Sure. When you need to know the unity of all believers, the whole Bible is needed.

eddif