DO YOU BELIEVE ITS OKAY TO EAT PORK, AS A BELIEVER IN GOD ?

[Remnantrob]

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

No, it is a matter of letting the text speak for itself and delivering the message intended by the author.  We do not get to supply the meaning that suits our fancy.  The text as a specific meaning that the author intends to convey.  This is not about narrative.    God does redeem the entire human being, but our physical redemption will not happen until we receive our glorified bodies.

If you want to abstain from certain meats, that is up to you.   I don't really care what you eat or don't eat.  What is problematic is creating a theology that says that the dietary commandments in the OT are obligatory on all believers.  

The Temple imagery had nothing do with what we eat or don't eat.   It had to do with abstaining from moral sin.  To take the imagery beyond what the author intended is sloppy exegesis and is not warranted in the text.  You simply don't have the authority to force the text to mean what you need it to mean in order to justify any claim that we are under an kind of dietary obligations per the OT.

What text are we talking about?  I mentioned things in the sanctuary in the sanctuary which are true. 

1) Only Clean meats were permitted in the literal sanctuary as a sacrifice.  

2) The priest weren't allowed to use alcohol while performing their priestly duties.

3)No strange fire was allowed in the sanctuary.

 

I then made a statement that our bodies are the temple of the holy spirit.  I didn't cite the text, I just said it was an interesting correlation between the literal temple our bodies which are described as temples.  I'm glad that we can agree that God's plan was to redeem the entire man because we were made in the image of God so we must be restored to that image.  Christ said that the thief comes to steal, kill and to destroy but Jesus comes not only so that we can have life, but to have it more abundantly and I believe that includes health.  (3 John 2).  

I'm sure you've read scripture 100s of times over and that 101st time you discover something that you never saw the first 100 times.  Maybe this is just one of those things.    Either way it's amazing how eating has nothing to do with the christian when Isaiah 66:17 seems to imply eating has a connection with being consumed by God.  

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, Remnantrob said:

What text are we talking about?  I mentioned things in the sanctuary in the sanctuary which are true. 

1) Only Clean meats were permitted in the literal sanctuary as a sacrifice.  

2) The priest weren't allowed to use alcohol while performing their priestly duties.

3)No strange fire was allowed in the sanctuary.

 

I then made a statement that our bodies are the temple of the holy spirit.  I didn't cite the text, I just said it was an interesting correlation between the literal temple our bodies which are described as temples. 

But you're drawing an obvious correlation between the temple and not eating what the OT calls unclean animals.   It was more than simply a correlation, even if you are unwilling to admit it, now. 

3 minutes ago, Remnantrob said:

I'm sure you've read scripture 100s of times over and that 101st time you discover something that you never saw the first 100 times.  Maybe this is just one of those things.    Either way it's amazing how eating has nothing to do with the christian when Isaiah 66:17 seems to imply eating has a connection with being consumed by God.  

No one said that eating has nothing do with the Christian. 

But Is. 66;17 has to do with the judgment of the nations.  They are not being  judged because they eat unclean animals.  The reference to unclean animals is simply presented as an identifying mark of the Gentile nations.   Nothing in that passage indicates that they are being judged on account of what they eat.

[brakelite]

Interesting that in the new earth followers of God will be keeping the Sabbath, and be vegetarian, both obviously being a blessing for all.  But for the Christian in this "dispensation of grace" both the above are considered yolks of bondage, a curse of the law, and a burden. I suppose this "dispensation of grace" therefore doesn't extend to the next world...will it again be a time of "law" and bondage?

[Guest shiloh357]

6 hours ago, brakelite said:

Interesting that in the new earth followers of God will be keeping the Sabbath, and be vegetarian, both obviously being a blessing for all.  But for the Christian in this "dispensation of grace" both the above are considered yolks of bondage, a curse of the law, and a burden. I suppose this "dispensation of grace" therefore doesn't extend to the next world...will it again be a time of "law" and bondage?

The Bible doesn't say we are going to be keeping the Sabbath in the new earth, nor does it say that we will be vegetarians.  Legalism, not law is what is a the curse/burden.

[brakelite]

31 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The Bible doesn't say we are going to be keeping the Sabbath in the new earth, nor does it say that we will be vegetarians.  Legalism, not law is what is a the curse/burden.

So where are you getting your meat from if there is no more death, pain, or sorrow? You going to eat them alive?

Isaiah 66:22  For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23  And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
 

[Guest shiloh357]

11 minutes ago, brakelite said:

So where are you getting your meat from if there is no more death, pain, or sorrow? You going to eat them alive?

Isaiah 66:22  For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23  And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
 

Our resurrected bodies will not need nutrition like our corrupt decaying bodies do. 

"From Sabbath to Sabbath and new moon to new moon"  doesn't mean that we will observing those days.   It is a way of saying that from week to week and from month to month, there will be continuous flow of people coming to worship the Lord.   Basically, all it is saying is that worship will happening 24/7.

And it is not talking about the new earth.  It is referencing the Millennial reign of Christ.

[brakelite]

57 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Our resurrected bodies will not need nutrition like our corrupt decaying bodies do. 

"From Sabbath to Sabbath and new moon to new moon"  doesn't mean that we will observing those days.   It is a way of saying that from week to week and from month to month, there will be continuous flow of people coming to worship the Lord.   Basically, all it is saying is that worship will happening 24/7.

And it is not talking about the new earth.  It is referencing the Millennial reign of Christ.

So the 'marriage supper of the Lamb' is not real? What a pity, I was really looking forward to sharing that glass of wine with my Husband.

So Isaiah 66:22 is speaking of a different epoch altogether from verse 23? Interesting way of interpreting scripture. Similar to the insertion of 2000 years of non-history between the 69th and the 70th weeks of Daniel 9:24. 3.5 degrees of difficulty for both, but it seems many Christians are very good at spiritual and prophetic gymnastics.

[Guest shiloh357]

34 minutes ago, brakelite said:

So the 'marriage supper of the Lamb' is not real?

You seriously think it is going to be an actual sit down meal?

 

Quote

So Isaiah 66:22 is speaking of a different epoch altogether from verse 23? Interesting way of interpreting scripture.

All verse 22 is doing is comparing the eternal timelessness of the New Heavens and New earth with the eternal timeless duration of His people.  

 

[brakelite]

10 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

You seriously think it is going to be an actual sit down meal?

 

Why not? Is not the sense of taste and smell one of the wonders and pleasures and gifts of God? Why would He take these away? Eden had them, is not the new earth a reconstruction of Eden, along with the innocent sensual pleasures that went with it?

 

10 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

All verse 22 is doing is comparing the eternal timelessness of the New Heavens and New earth with the eternal timeless duration of His people.  

 

I think we are all very adept at spiritualizing away those things which do not agree with our preconceived theology, and taking literal, that which does.

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, brakelite said:

Why not? Is not the sense of taste and smell one of the wonders and pleasures and gifts of God? Why would He take these away? Eden had them, is not the new earth a reconstruction of Eden, along with the innocent sensual pleasures that went with it?

That's a little naive.  Our supernatural bodies will have no need of nutrition.

Quote

I think we are all very adept at spiritualizing away those things which do not agree with our preconceived theology, and taking literal, that which does.

I am not spiritualizing anything.  I am taking it literally.   It doesn't say anything about keeping the Sabbath.   It is talking about worship and worship is not limited to one day a week.    It is talking about the flow of worshipers that will become every day from week to week and month to month.   That's what it is saying.