I thank you for reading. Just that much is encouragement for me! Coincidentally, I also took the time to answer PastorBlastor's deceptions in my latest entry. It doesn't surprise me that your experience with him was the same.

If he blocked you, then I can only assume that he blocked me too, and I don't need to bother with him anymore. I'm disappointed that he didn't prove to be much of a challenge.

I got to spend Passover with my brother, and we stuffed ourselves.

So PastorBlastor thinks I started several accounts that are now over a year old just so I could argue with him. Hilarious. I know AJ, and it's no surprise to me that we have the same style. Still, I can't help noticing that we think alike on a lot of things.

PastorBlastor is a Calvinist, and as such, has some heretical views of his own. I'm not planning on arguing that point with him soon, though, because I just finished a conversation on another site. (and frankly, I'm getting tired of it)

But the belief that Raichumaster takes, and the one you have begun to accept, does walk the line of being legalistic. Be careful Josh.

@ tsu_alum03
The belief that you take crosses the line of disobedience. I am nowhere close to exhausted on this subject. The Bible's message is consistent and clear on this subject, which is what makes this easy for me.

Legalism reaches further than just basic salvation. It also goes into that of maintaining salvation.

Josh, you mentioned not eating pork. We have no evidence of any meat eaten before the flood. God originally sanctioned plants as the primary source of food, Gen. 1:29. After the flood we have the first record of God allowing other sources for food, Gen. 9:3-4. This is echoed in 1 Tim. 4:3-4. So if God gave every thing that moveth to man for food, then proclaimed some food unclean during the time of the law, but allowed Paul to state that all was clean as long as it was sanctified by the word of God and prayer, does it not stand to reason that prok is included in that which may be eaten? Again, the purpose of the law was to point out our weakness and inability to be holy by our own merits. Eating only clean food is a work of the law that showed personal righteousness, but does not cleanse the conscience.

And James was not refering to the works of the law, but rather the works of love that come from faith. Again, the law of love spoken of in Romans and Galatians, ect.

Raichu: disobedience of what? Of your ideas? Of the manual works of the law that gain you no merit before God? Of the moral law of God? I believe God wants more from believers than just outward works.  

Gal. 5:1-6 (emphasis added) "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love."

So based upon the preceding passage, those who commit themselves to the law are bound to keep the whole law, and have fallen from grace because you have become justified by your own keeping of the law rather than Jesus'. My righteousness before the Father is not based on my personal adherence to the law of God, but on the righteousness of Christ. Nothing I do can add or detract from Christ's perfection. This is my stand.  

 

Paul's exemption of the Gentiles from circumcision did not mean that they were exempted from the whole law. This was not what he meant at all. As I'm sure I've said before, certain portions of the law served different purposes. Some defined sin and righteousness, and these laws certainly haven't stopped doing so. Other laws, ones mentioning procedures and penalties for breaking the law, were necessary for the governing of Israel. The rest of the laws concerned ceremonies and sacrifices, which remain in scripture to serve a symbolic purpose. These laws remain there for us to read over and glean their meaning. However, the keeping of these laws was temporary because they were "concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshy ordinances imposed until the time of reformation" (Hebrews 9:9-10) When Paul said that those imposing these ordinances on the Galatians were debtors to "the whole law", he was implying that the whole law should apply in part to the Gentiles doing so. He says this because he was becoming forceful in his arguments.

Paul's point in Galatians 5:11 is that Christ's work and sacrifice are sufficient, and saying that circumcision is still necessary goes against that fact. The illustration of the act of circumcision is that to become a part of the family of God, we have to remove our natural inclination to sin, which is what Paul means by inward circumcision in Romans 2:29.

God's commandments that define sin are written in "the law", but they don't define "the whole law". Paul's use of the term "the whole law" was supposed to help illustrate that there were ceremonial, symbolic aspects that were not required of the gentiles. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul expresses clearly what is required: "Circumcision is nothing and circumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters" (1st Corinthians 7:19)

Laws which define righteousness were not temporary, however. They define the standards that all mankind has to meet, along with faith, to inherit the Kingdom of God, which will be established with Jesus's second coming on earth. This category of law is not temporary. Ceremonial and civil law still serve the purpose of illustrating God's character, and help us to develop in character as well.

Paul's statement in his letter to Timothy goes misused, as you've illustrated well. Paul's messages regarding meats often concerns whether it is lawful to consume meats that have been offered to idols "the eating of things offered to idols" (1st Corinthians 8:4), which unconverted gentiles often put on the market right after the offering (the offering in Acts 14:13 was an oxen, a clean animal). Paul's conclusion was that it was not necessary to ask someone if a meat has been offered to an idol (1st Corinthians 10:25-27) if you don't know or are visiting a friend's house. Any association with idolatrous activity did not impact whether the food was suitable for eating "an idol is nothing in the world" (1st Corinthians 8:4). In cases where some believed differently, it was better not to eat meat than risk causing offense (1st Corinthians 8:13, 10:28). Paul's issue was the conscience of the believer. As many of the converted gentiles once took part in the offering of meats and drinks, he was concerned that consuming things that could remind them of their former pagan beliefs, and weaken their newfound faith.

Whether certain meats should or should not be eaten did not change with the transition between the Levitical priesthood and the High Priesthood of Yeshua (Jesus). The assumption that the food laws were voided because they were merely a part of Jewish culture was not the lesson of the New Testament, however, it has been read into it.

Concerning Peter's vision (Acts 10:11-13), Peter immediately responded saying "Not so, Lord! For I have never eater anything common or unclean" (14) Peter had this same vision three times (16). He had wondered what these visions meant (17). Many assume that they know the meaning of the passage at this point, and read no further. If they had, they would have found Peter's conclusion: "God has shown me that I should not call any man common of unclean" (28). Knowing this, Peter baptized the first gentiles God called to the church (45-48). In conclusion, this passage didn't concern food at all, but whether salvation was becoming open to the gentiles, people of any race. We realise that God has not abolished the food laws, but instead we see that nearly 20 years after Christ's death, Peter continued to uphold these laws.

Jesus's statement in Mark 7:18-19, where he says "Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach", is perceived as referring to clean an unclean meats. What is being discussed, as is made plain in verses 2-5, was ceremonial cleansing, not clean and unclean meats. Jesus and his disciples ate only meats the scriptures specify as clean, just the same as the people they were taking issue with. They were being chided for not going through the Pharisee-invented ritual of washing their hands before eating. Washing your thoughts was more important than washing your hands (verses 20-23). The New International Version and the New American Standard Bible states "(and thus he declared all foods clean)", which was neither in the King James Version or in the original Greek manuscripts.

In Colossians 2:16, where Paul says "let no one judge you in food or drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths", some assume that he was speaking regarding pork or other unclean meats. Not so. The Greek word translated "food", "brosis", refers to the act of eating, not to the food itself. Many assume that Paul's comments concerned teachers who exercised Old Testament practices. However, nothing in Colossians supports this view. However, many perversions of the new church and of Judaism abounded in his time. Observe: "Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations-'Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,' which all concern things which perish with the using-according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh" (Colossians 2:20-23). Here we see Paul clearly admonishing ascetics, who believed that avoiding anything enjoyable made them appear self-disciplined and righteous. He is encouraging the Colossian converts that it is not wrong to enjoy Holy Days and feasts associated with them, which means that they were participating in them!

Let's go back to your statement from Timothy (1st Timothy 4:3-5). Here is the verse itself: "forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." In this verse, we can discover the nature of the true nature of the teachers that Paul was speaking against. They were issuing commands not found in the scriptures. Those scriptures didn't discourage marriage, on the contrary, marriage was encouraged. They were also commanding to abstain from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. The problem was that the teachers were forbidding anyone from eating meats of any sort, including clean meats, in an effort to look self-disciplined and righteous. Verse 4:1 takes us to the heart of the issue. Such ascetic beliefs originated with "deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons", and not in the scriptures. Paul assumes that we understand what defines the foods we are allowed to begin with: "those who believe and know the truth" (verse 3) would be familiar with the scriptures that identify which meats were "sanctified [set apart] by the word of God" (verse 5) for our enjoyment. The issue addressed in Timothy, just as Colossians, was asceticm, not adherence to God's dietary laws.

No New Testament passage describes Christians eating meats that have been considered unclean. However, the Bible does give us an indication of how long the dietary laws would remain in effect. In Leviticus 11, the word "abomination" is used no less than 7 times in reference to foods and whether we can eat them, and God, being consistent and unchanging (James 1:17, Malachi 3:6, 4:4, Hebrews 13:8, Matthew 5:17-19), likely wouldn't change his mind about anything he calls an "abomination". Revelation 18:2 uses the phrase "a haunt for every unclean and hated bird" in referring to end time conditions. This phrase wouldn't be used if such distinctions as clean and unclean no longer exists. A passage refers to the time of Jesus's return, painting this picture: "For behold, the LORD will come with fire and with His chariots, ... the LORD will judge all flesh; and the slain of the LORD shall be many. 'Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, to go to the gardens after an idol in the midst, eating swine's flesh and the abomination and the mouse, shall be consumed together,' says the LORD" (Isaiah 66:15-17). Those who call themselves children of God and eat swine will be punished.

God's commands concerning clean and unclean meats are clear, have been kept by the called-out assemblies of the New Testament, and will be enforced by Jesus when he returns. God's laws are for our benefit. We should keep them, without fear that they will make us look strange, and whether we immediately know the purpose for them.

Thanks so much for your well researched comments, RaichuMaster. You have saved me a lot of time and typing. :P

If you're against religious deception, as you appear to be, then Anonymous needs your help. I'm here to open the door.

We are Anonymous.
Expect us.

No problem. That one just flowed from the fingertips.