Hmm...I think I should spend a little more time on this...
Sister Cristobela
They would start noticing: these guys don't eat certain things. "Where's the bacon?" "Uh, it's prohibited in the Law, let me show you." There was ample opportunity—by what was preached in the synagogues, what was read from the law and the prophets, down to how they lived. No one would let them sin (if they loved God and their fellow neighbor as themselves); not unless they were only hanging out with Gentiles ignorant of the law—that's not what you'd find in the synagogues, especially on the Sabbath.
This is a fair point.
Sister Cristobela
He wouldn't have to repeat himself seeing as Paul addresses "what food is" in his other epistles. This chapter is just tackling the issue of meats sacrificed to idols, not whether it was an animal consecrated by the word of God or not.
I do not think you adequately addressed my comment about unbelievers and what they eat. My point was this: If Paul was concerned about unbelievers, who wouldn't adhere to the Jewish dietary laws, serving unclean food to the believers, he would have mentioned it, and it would have been a reasonable concern. But he doesn't.
Please feel free to address this further.
Sister Cristobela
Jesus declared all foods clean, not all animals clean. Jesus had to sound redundant and state the obvious because the Pharisees' traditions started prohibiting even clean animals if food was being prohibited / considered unclean if they didn't wash their hands beforehand. Jesus had to state the law: all clean animals (seed-bearing plants) a.k.a. foods are foods. Even if you don't participate in the hand-washing ritual, that doesn't change what our Father commanded/defined as food.
I'm still not convinced that that is what is meant in Mark 7. I can see how you could view it that way, especially with the nuances of Jewish laws. I simply don't think that is how the Scripture is supposed to be read. I think it could have been more nuanced if it literally meant clean foods were clean even if no handwashing was involved, such as "Thus Jesus declared that dirty hands did not make food unclean" rather than "Thus Jesus declared all foods clean." I still think that my argument stands.
Sister Cristobela
Until you acknowledge the subtlety of how the bible defines food and how the phrase "unclean food" is non-existent, we will continue to disagree on what Mark 7 and 1 Timothy 4 says.
I can see the subtlety you speak of. I am just not certain that the Old Testament Law given to Israel applies in the manner of dietary restrictions, based on my understanding of the other Scriptures and my understanding of the Law given to Israel.
Sister Cristobela
Those who take part in the first resurrection (those who died in Christ) get raised to life at the start of Jesus' millenial reign. But then, after the 1000 years, there are people coming against his city, and these people get devoured by fire. Death is still around...
Assuming that the Classic Premillennial view is the correct interpretation of Revelation (which it may not be).
Additionally, in the context of the rest of the Isaiah passage, which reads:
19I will rejoice in Jerusalem
and be glad in my people;
no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping
and the cry of distress.
20
No more shall there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not fill out his days,
for the young man shall die a hundred years old,
and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.
21
They shall build houses and inhabit them;
they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22
They shall not build and another inhabit;
they shall not plant and another eat;
for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be,
and my chosen shall long enjoy[c] the work of their hands.
23
They shall not labor in vain
or bear children for calamity,[d]
for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the Lord,
and their descendants with them.
On the contrary of your interpretation of this Isaiah passage, the Lord does seem to be talking about those who dwell in Jerusalem, not outside. Isaiah is speaking in contrast to the present time, when people live but a few days. But they will live a hundred years. They. They. They. This is something that is repeated in this passage. "No more shall there be in it..." and then it continues. In it. In the city. In Jerusalem.
Also, you did not address the childbearing passage. Do you have an explanation for it? It seems to be that these things are symbols given to the Jewish audience to reflect paradise and communion with God, as other details in the chapter demonstrate.
Sister Cristobela
You said a whole bunch of nothing with this, lol, because I agree. Not only do they not contradict, but they teach the exact same thing.
You claimed that I made Paul contradict himself, and made the New Testament teachings contradict the Old. My claim is that I do not see this with my interpretation. You don't agree with me. So, no, I didn't say a whole bunch of nothing. My point was that I did not, based on my interpretation, see them contradicting each other at all, despite what you said. I also don't think you adequately demonstrated it, but that is in part because I disagree with how you're interpreting them.
Sister Cristobela
May the Holy Spirit empower me to grow in this area so that no one will have any excuse to detract from what I said because of how I said it.
I hope so, but not so that no one will have any excuse but rather so that you will become more like Christ with a spirit of peace and gentleness.
I hope you're not implying that I'm using your crassness as an excuse to not listen to you, because what I was really doing was gently rebuking you for what I considered to be less than Christlike behavior. That someone is acting rude does not mean they are not correct. I do not fall for such fallacious thinking.
Sister Cristobela
The council—like the Pharisees, and like us today—have no authority to add or take from God's Law.
I agree. I was not saying that they had such authority. Now let us consider how you responded to me at one point. Should I claim that you are saying a whole lot of nothing and laugh about it? How would that make you feel? You might consider that to be rude or condescending.
Do you see what I mean by your being snarky?
At any rate, there are times when you must agree to disagree. Are you saying that if you disagree with someone on Eschatology, you ought to separate from them? Division is from Satan.
Or is it only when you think someone is sinning? That would be the context of those passages.
The lack of appearance does not necessitate its lack of existence in principle. The word "Trinity" doesn't appear in the Bible, so saying that such phrases do not appear in the Bible doesn't mean that the idea cannot be deduced based on what is said in the Bible, such as what is found in 1 Peter 2, and commands to love the brethren and avoid quarreling over things that aren't as important. So really, there is a time when one must agree to disagree with believers. It may not be this time, in your opinion, but you cannot throw the whole thing out the window.
Many believers eat meats that you claim remain "unclean". They are not pagans. They love the LORD and bear the fruit of the Spirit. Is it not possible that those who eat meats you claim, and not without reason, are still unclean are genuine believers?
Sister Cristobela
We will be judged for everything we did in this body and to this body (it's not our own; this body belongs to God); this is the holy temple of God's Spirit. Would YHWH have allowed people to graffiti the tabernacle? It's vandalism.
There are theologians who claim that God does not literally dwell within each individual but in the corporate body as a whole. So this argument wouldn't work against them. They might argue, therefore, that tattoos are not condemnable for that reason.
I don't believe that myself. But I have a point, and it is this: our interpretation could be faulty. In other words, it is entirely possible for theologians to agree to disagree.
Sister Cristobela
"Much like"...? Not at all similar.
Actually, if you follow my logic based on my understanding of how to interpret the passages, yes, it is much like that. Cultural context is what I'm speaking of, and cultural context is important when interpreting the Prophets. That was the point I was making.
As for the Genesis passage, it's not the thrust of my argument. I was merely making an observation.
Sister Cristobela
We are joining Israel.
Define what you mean by joining Israel. We, the Church, are the true Israel.
God bless.
