Stuff that is Abomination

[Mark C]

In Acts 15:10, the apostle Peter warns that those why try to force Christian believers to follow the Law of Moses for salvation are testing the patience of God.

More שֶׁקֶץ
(There's an English word, too. It's "what comes out of a man," or the hind end of a dog. Literally AND metaphorically.)

That was reprehensible.

Why do you so haughtily ASSUME that the "yoke" was the Torah of Moses, of which the Author was the Master they served? Shame! Didn't you get the whole POINT of Matthew chapter 23 and Mark 7? It was the ADDITIONS TO His Word, the "traditions of men," by which they made the "commandments of Yah of NO EFFECT" that was the subject. NOT His Instruction!!! (And, lest you still deny His Word - check out Deuteronomy 30, which says "it's NOT too hard for you," repeatedly. They weren't contradicting Him!)

They claimed and mandated a PRECONDITION for His Work of Salvation that He did not! (Acts 15:1)

The story of Act 15, and the lesson, is obvious for those with "eyes to see". (Read v 21! They SAY so!)

But the subject of this thread is abomination, and things that are detestable to Him. Twisting His Word, and essentially calling Him a liar, is arguably at the top of that list. But "teaching others to do so," is in fact something you should decide to stop doing.

We should NOT be teaching people do do things which - no doubt about it! - He says are "abomination" to Him. Whether you believe the Real Messiah did away with His own Written word or not.

 

[frederick]

Since this thread is titled, Stuff that is Abomination here are some things listed in the Bible. Proverbs 6:16-19
These six things the Lord hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.
All worth remembering.

 

[smilingjack]

They claimed and mandated a PRECONDITION for His Work of Salvation that He did not! (Acts 15:1)

The story of Act 15, and the lesson, is obvious for those with "eyes to see". (Read v 21! They SAY so!

I think it’s important to note that justification and sanctification are not the same things, although they are a part of what we would call salvation. Paul and the apostles, in my view, always argued for justification by faith alone in Christ alone, which means we identify as being in the family of God eternally by Christ alone (not circumcision - cough). However, they also advocated for what James called the ‘Law of Liberty’ which is the application of Gods standards in a merciful and patient way (‘love your neighbor as yourself.’)

So, it’s both faith in Christ to be justified and following the Gods standards (aka not sinning) which leads to sanctification. The question of ‘what is Gods standard’ or maybe ‘what is Gods standard when Christ fulfilled the law’ is the complicated one. What laws remain/are applicable, and what laws were fulfilled?

 

[Mark C]

The question of ‘what is Gods standard’ or maybe ‘what is Gods standard when Christ fulfilled the law’ is the complicated one. What laws remain/are applicable, and what laws were fulfilled?

Not really. Not at all. It really is NOT "too hard for you." Additions to His Word, subtractions, and and twistings have attempted to make what was 'simple in Him,' far more obtuse than what He Wrote, and SAID HE WOULD NOT CHANGE.

'Fulfilled' does NOT mean "ended". It is better that people who have "inherited lies" on that score understand that the "end of the law" is a gross mis-translation. It is FAR better rendered, that He, the Messiah, is "the GOAL of the Instruction" (which includes the prophetic.) [Ref: Romans 10. That's a whole teaching in itself! But, very much 'twisted' by 'anti-nomians'... and, no, I don't like that word. ]

Again, translating 'torah' as mere "law" is a big part of the error. His torah INCLUDES, but is not limited to, "statutes, judgments, and commandments," as well as examples (some might say 'precedents' now in legalese - examples include Abraham demonstrating 'contract law 101' in buying the cave of Macpelah; offer and acceptance, paying with honest money - compensation, even a recorded deed, and so on, including "agency" in the form of his un-named 'good and faithful servant') and, yes, parables. It's more than 'just' law. It's His INSTRUCTION for us.**

And His instruction includes things like HOW He wants to be worshiped, which never, ever included what He calls abomination. And He 'changes not,' said so, and made that clear in His very first public address (aka, 'the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5 through 7).

I will continue to contend that to call Him a liar, and claim He did away with His own Word, when He so CLEARLY said otherwise (if 'heaven and earth' still exist: QED) is exactly what "stuff that is abomination" means.

I leave it to the reader to ponder whether or not it could amount to "blasphemy against His Ruach HaKodesh," since we are individually responsible on that score. I contend that at minimum it is bearing false witness.

ׁ

-----------------------------------
** A hint for those who might not understand, and are having trouble with the 'xtian baggage.' This isn't meat, just preparation for milk:

Everywhere you see the word "law" in Scripture, starting with the "Old" part, check to see if the Hebrew word used is 'torah' (or the plural form, totot, or "MY torah," torati, etc.) IF it is (and is usually is) - substitute the more correct "God's Teaching and Instruction" and see if it doesn't make a LOT more sense. THEN, when you read Paul (or places like Matthew chapter 23, and Mark 7, etc, where the translators generally do a better job) note that the Greek word 'nomos' is NOT a synonym for 'torah'!!! It can, and often does, include things MEN call "law", but which are decidedly NOT the same as His 'teaching and instruction.' In fact, that is often Paul's point - but you won't see it if you don't understand the words.

Which is a 'yoke'? Which is 'bondage'? His INSTRUCTION, which makes us "free indeed"? Or the burdensome volumes of "law" which men lay upon their slaves? (As an easy example, compare the simplicity of "shall not be infringed," from the Second Amendment, to 'nomos' that includes over 20,000 "laws" - all of 'em 'unconstitutional', but still called "law" by the lawless - that bind those who don't know any better into the kind of slavery that has killed millions in just the last century alone. The SAME 'nomos' that has forced millions to take an injection that is destroying their God-given immune system, and WILL end up as the 'mark of the beast'.)

Choose.

 

[Michael Moon]

I'd much rather be least in the Kingdom of Heaven for teaching incorrectly regarding certain aspects of the Law than be outside the Kingdom altogether, gnashing my teeth because I refused the gracious gift of God to be justified by faith in Jesus and instead pursued righteousness by works of the Law.

Justified, not sanctified. We are saved first by faith in Yeshua, but then we are to walk in His ways. WWJD, right?

You are badly mistaken if you think that was the main work of Christ. He is infinitely more than our moral example. He is our Savior.

And we follow His example. He says to "sin no more". What is sin?

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." - 1 John 3:4 (KJV)

He didn't come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. And fulfill it He did! It has been fulfilled.

Yes, he fulfilled it by keeping it. He didn't throw it away once it was done or tell everyone to stop keeping it.

In Acts 15:10, the apostle Peter warns that those why try to force Christian believers to follow the Law of Moses for salvation are testing the patience of God.

"Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"

I think some of the "Torah emphasis guys" here are exactly the kind of false teachers Paul warned us about in Galatians.

"Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." - Revelation 22:14 (KJV)

The Judaizers tried to force people to be circumcised and begin keeping all the Law before they could even be counted as part of the assembly. The decision was made that the gentiles could be let into the assembly with some bare minimum requirements and would then be expected to learn the rest "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." - Acts 15:21 (KJV)

In addition
You guys really cannot escape the fact that sometimes the Law changes.

Adam was given plants only.

Adam was also naked, without sin, and walked with God in the garden. Here, I will admit a dramatic change from paradise to the world we live in today. The world we still live in.

After the flood, Noah was given permission to eat all kinds animals. All means all, clean and unclean.

"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you".

Humans are moving things that live. Are they food for Noah and his family? Did God just tell them to eat each other? All does not always mean all. If you say to your children "wash all the dishes" what does all mean? All the dishes in the country? The world? No, you probably mean all the dishes in the house (or maybe the sink).

If you say "eat all the food", do you mean all the dog food? All the rotten food? Or just the things which would be considered food to you and yours?

"All" does not always include everything. So why would Noah and his family be instructed to take clean animals in excess, but then immediately be told "nevermind you can eat whatever". It really is ridiculous.

That's pretty clear.

Scripture must always be read through the lens of scripture. It is not the Word that is inconsistent, it is our understanding.

I've tried to ignore any personal attacks because "reeee you're a pharisee and you're telling me stuff I don't like" is not at all useful to the conversation.

 

[Bartato]

Not really. Not at all. It really is NOT "too hard for you." Additions to His Word, subtractions, and and twistings have attempted to make what was 'simple in Him,' far more obtuse than what He Wrote, and SAID HE WOULD NOT CHANGE.

'Fulfilled' does NOT mean "ended". It is better that people who have "inherited lies" on that score understand that the "end of the law" is a gross mis-translation. It is FAR better rendered, that He, the Messiah, is "the GOAL of the Instruction" (which includes the prophetic.)

Again, translating 'torah' as mere "law" is a big part of the error. His torah INCLUDES, but is not limited to, "statutes, judgments, and commandments," as well as examples (some might say 'precedents' now in legalese - examples include Abraham demonstrating 'contract law 101' in buying the cave of Macpelah; offer and acceptance, paying with honest money - compensation, even a recorded deed, and so on, including "agency" in the form of his un-named 'good and faithful servant') and, yes, parables. It's more than 'just' law. It's His INSTRUCTION for us.**

And His instruction includes things like HOW He wants to be worshiped, which never, ever included what He calls abomination. And He 'changes not,' said so, and made that clear in His very first public address (aka, 'the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5 through 7).

I will continue to contend that to call Him a liar, and claim He did away with His own Word, when He so CLEARLY said otherwise (if 'heaven and earth' still exist: QED) is exactly what "stuff that is abomination" means.

I leave it to the reader to ponder whether or not it could amount to "blasphemy against His Ruach HaKodesh." I contend that at minimum it is bearing false witness.

ׁ

-----------------------------------
** A hint for those who might not understand, and are having trouble with the 'xtian baggage.' This isn't meat, just preparation for milk:

Everywhere you see the word "law" in Scripture, starting with the "Old" part, check to see if the Hebrew word used is 'torah' (or the plural form, totot, or "MY torah," torati, etc.) IF it is (and is usually is) - substitute the more correct "God's Teaching and Instruction" and see if it doesn't make a LOT more sense. THEN, when you read Paul (or places like Matthew chapter 23, and Mark 7, etc, where the translators generally do a better job) note that the Greek word 'nomos' is NOT a synonym for 'torah'!!! It can, and often does, include things MEN call "law", but which are decidedly NOT the same as His 'teaching and instruction.' In fact, that is often Paul's point - but you won't see it if you don't understand the words.

Which is a 'yoke'? Which is 'bondage'? His INSTRUCTION, which makes us "free indeed"? Or the burdensome volumes of "law" which men lay upon their slaves? (As an easy example, compare the simplicity of "shall not be infringed," from the Second Amendment, to 'nomos' that includes over 20,000 "laws" - all of 'em 'unconstitutional', but still called "law" by the lawless - that bind those who don't know any better into the kind of slavery that has killed millions in just the last century alone. The SAME 'nomos' that has forced millions to take an injection that is destroying their God-given immune system, and WILL end up as the 'mark of the beast'.)

Choose.

You still haven't begun to address the fact that WITHIN THE TORAH ITSELF, God gives three profoundly different dietary standards.

Different rules were given to different people at different times.

Adam - Plants only

Noah - "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs." (Genesis 9:3 NKJV)

Noah has permission to eat any kind (clean and unclean) of animal.

Moses/Sinai - Permission to eat only certain animals

Our father Abraham was under the dietary law given to Noah when he received the Covenant of Promise.

Based on the teaching of Acts, Revelation, and the Epistles, those of us that are heirs of this promise, fulfilled in Christ, seem to be under the same dietary rules as Abraham and Noah.

The dietary instructions to the Church of Christ in Acts, Revelation, and the Epistles all seem to correspond to the Law given to Noah rather than the Law given to Moses. We are told things like avoiding blood, strangled animals, and foods sacrificed to idols.

They never mention that we need to avoid things like pork and shrimp. These things were certainly widely eaten all across the Roman empire, yet seem to be of no particular concern to the apostles in their letters, or Christ in His letters to the seven churches in Revelation.

The Law given 430 years later to the Israelites does not annul the covenant of promise given to Abraham and his Seed. The book of Galatians explains all of this in detail.

Someone who hypothetically tried to force us all to follow Adam's vegetarian diet would be misguided. We operate under a different set of rules.

The rules given at Sinai are good, but they were given to a certain group of people at a certain time as part of a different covenant.

Those who try to force the stipulations of Sinai onto the children of the Covenant of Promise are misguided at best.

They may also be false brethren seeking to enslave us as mentioned in Galatians 2:4, the natural born sons of Hagar/Sinai the slave woman, that persecute the sons of the free woman born according to the promise of God (Galatians 4:21-31).

 

[MeganC]

Since this thread is titled, Stuff that is Abomination here are some things listed in the Bible. Proverbs 6:16-19
These six things the Lord hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.
All worth remembering.

I'm quite relieved to find that bacon is not on this list.

 

[FollowingHim]

Everywhere you see the word "law" in Scripture, starting with the "Old" part, check to see if the Hebrew word used is 'torah' (or the plural form, totot, or "MY torah," torati, etc.) IF it is (and is usually is) - substitute the more correct "God's Teaching and Instruction" and see if it doesn't make a LOT more sense. THEN, when you read Paul (or places like Matthew chapter 23, and Mark 7, etc, where the translators generally do a better job) note that the Greek word 'nomos' is NOT a synonym for 'torah'!!! It can, and often does, include things MEN call "law", but which are decidedly NOT the same as His 'teaching and instruction.' In fact, that is often Paul's point - but you won't see it if you don't understand the words.

Is there a word in the New Testament that is a synonym for Torah?

 

[Mark C]

Is there a word in the New Testament that is a synonym for Torah?

No. And that is the problem. "Nomos" is a conflation, it confuses BOTH the "law of men" (aka 'tradition,' yoke, burden, etc) with His "teaching and instruction". As I noted, part of the problem is that the word "torah" is bigger than just 'commandments', or other words (chuq, mitzvah, mishpat) that connote specifics like, statutes, judgment, commandments.

Thus one of the Biggest Lies in all human history: that the "Torah Made Flesh" did away with His own Word. And thus is NOT 'the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow,' - and ultimately, can't even be what He WAS - the Messiah and Son of Yah. See Deuteronomy 13, and others...

And that is 'stuff that is Abomination,' for sure. (and it's idolatry, of course, as well.)


PS> Even "Torah of Moses" isn't a true synonym, for several reasons. "Torah" (with a capital-T) is often used to describe the first five Books of the Bible, given by Moshe. But THAT work uses the word 'torah' many, many times...to describe what it contains: His Instruction. And there is of course instruction outside of those first Books, including what the Torah Made Flesh Himself came to teach, with Authority (Matthew 7:28-9) but NOT, as He just said, to change "one yod or tiddle".

 

[smilingjack]

No. And that is the problem. "Nomos" is a conflation, it confuses BOTH the "law of men" (aka 'tradition,' yoke, burden, etc) with His "teaching and instruction". As I noted, part of the problem is that the word "torah" is bigger than just 'commandments', or other words (chuq, mitzvah, mishpat) that connote specifics like, statutes, judgment, commandments.

Thus one of the Biggest Lies in all human history: that the "Torah Made Flesh" did away with His own Word. And thus is NOT 'the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow,' - and ultimately, can't even be what He WAS - the Messiah and Son of Yah. See Deuteronomy 13, and others...

And that is 'stuff that is Abomination,' for sure. (and it's idolatry, of course, as well.)


PS> Even "Torah of Moses" isn't a true synonym, for several reasons. "Torah" (with a capital-T) is often used to describe the first five Books of the Bible, given by Moshe. But THAT work uses the word 'torah' many, many times...to describe what it contains: His Instruction. And there is of course instruction outside of those first Books, including what the Torah Made Flesh Himself came to teach, with Authority (Matthew 7:28-9) but NOT, as He just said, to change "one yod or tiddle".

Brother, I'm so grateful that you are so passionate about this. It reminds me of Jesus' words in Matthew 5:18, "Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least of these in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." You have the heart of Christ about this for sure.

 

[The Revolting Man]

This is not the

You still haven't begun to address the fact that WITHIN THE TORAH ITSELF, God gives three profoundly different dietary standards.

Different rules were given to different people at different times.

Adam - Plants only

Noah - "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs." (Genesis 9:3 NKJV)

Noah has permission to eat any kind (clean and unclean) of animal.

Moses/Sinai - Permission to eat only certain animals

Our father Abraham was under the dietary law given to Noah when he received the Covenant of Promise.

Based on the teaching of Acts, Revelation, and the Epistles, those of us that are heirs of this promise, fulfilled in Christ, seem to be under the same dietary rules as Abraham and Noah.

The dietary instructions to the Church of Christ in Acts, Revelation, and the Epistles all seem to correspond to the Law given to Noah rather than the Law given to Moses. We are told things like avoiding blood, strangled animals, and foods sacrificed to idols.

They never mention that we need to avoid things like pork and shrimp. These things were certainly widely eaten all across the Roman empire, yet seem to be of no particular concern to the apostles in their letters, or Christ in His letters to the seven churches in Revelation.

The Law given 430 years later to the Israelites does not annul the covenant of promise given to Abraham and his Seed. The book of Galatians explains all of this in detail.

Someone who hypothetically tried to force us all to follow Adam's vegetarian diet would be misguided. We operate under a different set of rules.

The rules given at Sinai are good, but they were given to a certain group of people at a certain time as part of a different covenant.

Those who try to force the stipulations of Sinai onto the children of the Covenant of Promise are misguided at best.

They may also be false brethren seeking to enslave us as mentioned in Galatians 2:4, the natural born sons of Hagar/Sinai the slave woman, that persecute the sons of the free woman born according to the promise of God (Galatians 4:21-31).

I am a Torah keeper and I eat clean and I would encourage anyone to do so as well. However intellectual integrity should drive anyone to say this is a compelling case against requiring it.

 

[Bartato]

Justified, not sanctified. We are saved first by faith in Yeshua, but then we are to walk in His ways. WWJD, right?

And we follow His example. He says to "sin no more". What is sin?

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." - 1 John 3:4 (KJV)

Yes, he fulfilled it by keeping it. He didn't throw it away once it was done or tell everyone to stop keeping it.

"Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." - Revelation 22:14 (KJV)

The Judaizers tried to force people to be circumcised and begin keeping all the Law before they could even be counted as part of the assembly. The decision was made that the gentiles could be let into the assembly with some bare minimum requirements and would then be expected to learn the rest "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." - Acts 15:21 (KJV)

Adam was also naked, without sin, and walked with God in the garden. Here, I will admit a dramatic change from paradise to the world we live in today. The world we still live in.

Humans are moving things that live. Are they food for Noah and his family? Did God just tell them to eat each other? All does not always mean all. If you say to your children "wash all the dishes" what does all mean? All the dishes in the country? The world? No, you probably mean all the dishes in the house (or maybe the sink).

If you say "eat all the food", do you mean all the dog food? All the rotten food? Or just the things which would be considered food to you and yours?

"All" does not always include everything. So why would Noah and his family be instructed to take clean animals in excess, but then immediately be told "nevermind you can eat whatever". It really is ridiculous.

Scripture must always be read through the lens of scripture. It is not the Word that is inconsistent, it is our understanding.

I've tried to ignore any personal attacks because "reeee you're a pharisee and you're telling me stuff I don't like" is not at all useful to the conversation.

I appreciate that you seem to affirm the fact that we are justified by faith in Christ apart from works of the Law. I think that is really at the heart of the matter.

I also agree that it is very important for us to obey God's instructions as we seek to walk by faith. Those who love Jesus will obey Him (John 14:23, John 15:10, etc.)

I know the "Torah guys" love to quote 1st John 3:4 and then try to say that it means that all believers in Christ are obligated to obey every particular detail of the Law given at Sinai (even though the Bible explicitly states that circumcision is no longer required).

I think the the "Torah guys" misapply this verse. Look at the larger context of the whole book of 1st John. It is pretty much summarized in two concepts.
1. Believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and Savior of the world.
2. Love the brethren

"And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment." (1st John 3:23 NKJV)

This is His commandment.

 

[Mark C]

You still haven't begun to address the fact that WITHIN THE TORAH ITSELF, God gives three profoundly different dietary standards.

Because the illogic that follows is flatulence, and self-evidently self-contradictory.

You aren't 'immortal' like Adam WAS. BEFORE he did what made the entire REST OF THE BOOK, after Genesis 3, necessary! Yes, "He knew the end from the Beginning, and had a plan for redemption even before it played out."

Likewise, although Noach clearly KNEW what most of the Whore Church now ignores (he knew which animals were 'clean' - even before they were food. Hmmm....)
...he, too, lived a lot longer than ANY who followed, after Yah wiped everyone else out.

Are you seriously suggesting his body wasn't SUBSTANTIALLY different from ours? (I could go on...that 'decay' seems to have necessitated restraints on 'close relationships' (aka incest) that weren't necessary for Abraham, but were later.) Or, equally ridiculous, are you claiming that the body changes that happened 'post-Noah' somehow CHANGED the digestion and immune systems of both man and pork (etc) at Calvary? Funny He never told us. Didn't even tell Peter. (Acts 10:14)

There are truly asinine, self-serving arguments to deny what is obvious: His Word, as Written, is True, and "a lamp to our feet," and "perfect", and "for blessing" and FOR ALL OF US who would like to be "grafted in" to His promise, through His provision for us.

"Why do you call Me, 'Lord, lord,' and NOT DO THE THINGS I SAY?" (Luke 6:26)

 

[Mark C]

I'm quite relieved to find that bacon is not on this list.

Neither is mRNA injection. Nor dioxin.

 

[Bartato]

This is not the

I am a Torah keeper and I eat clean and I would encourage anyone to do so as well. However intellectual integrity should drive anyone to say this is a compelling case against requiring it.

I really appreciate your position that it is good to eat clean, but that it isn't absolutely required.

 

[MeganC]

Neither is mRNA injection. Nor dioxin.

Dioxin in water makes it taste better. Or so Pete Buttgig says!

 

[Bartato]

Because the illogic that follows is flatulence, and self-evidently self-contradictory.

You aren't 'immortal' like Adam WAS. BEFORE he did what made the entire REST OF THE BOOK, after Genesis 3, necessary! Yes, "He knew the end from the Beginning, and had a plan for redemption even before it played out."

Likewise, although Noach clearly KNEW what most of the Whore Church now ignores (he knew which animals were 'clean' - even before they were food. Hmmm....)
...he, too, lived a lot longer than ANY who followed, after Yah wiped everyone else out.

Are you seriously suggesting his body wasn't SUBSTANTIALLY different from ours? (I could go on...that 'decay' seems to have necessitated restraints on 'close relationships' (aka incest) that weren't necessary for Abraham, but were later.) Or, equally ridiculous, are you claiming that the body changes that happened 'post-Noah' somehow CHANGED the digestion and immune systems of both man and pork (etc) at Calvary? Funny He never told us. Didn't even tell Peter. (Acts 10:14)

There are truly asinine, self-serving arguments to deny what is obvious: His Word, as Written, is True, and "a lamp to our feet," and "perfect", and "for blessing" and FOR ALL OF US who would like to be "grafted in" to His promise, through His provision for us.

"Why do you call Me, 'Lord, lord,' and NOT DO THE THINGS I SAY?" (Luke 6:26)

I'm calling you out on your obvious bull crap.

"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you" (Genesis 9:3) absolutely does not mean the same thing as: "Among the animals, whatever divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud—that you may eat." (Leviticus 11:3).

Both statements are Torah
The Law changed

 

[MeganC]

I'm calling you out on your obvious bull crap.

"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you" (Genesis 9:3) absolutely does not mean the same thing as: "Among the animals, whatever divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud—that you may eat." (Leviticus 11:3).

Both statements are Torah
The Law changed

I like your sense of logic!

 

[Bartato]

Justified, not sanctified. We are saved first by faith in Yeshua, but then we are to walk in His ways. WWJD, right?

And we follow His example. He says to "sin no more". What is sin?

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." - 1 John 3:4 (KJV)

Yes, he fulfilled it by keeping it. He didn't throw it away once it was done or tell everyone to stop keeping it.

"Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." - Revelation 22:14 (KJV)

The Judaizers tried to force people to be circumcised and begin keeping all the Law before they could even be counted as part of the assembly. The decision was made that the gentiles could be let into the assembly with some bare minimum requirements and would then be expected to learn the rest "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." - Acts 15:21 (KJV)

Adam was also naked, without sin, and walked with God in the garden. Here, I will admit a dramatic change from paradise to the world we live in today. The world we still live in.

Humans are moving things that live. Are they food for Noah and his family? Did God just tell them to eat each other? All does not always mean all. If you say to your children "wash all the dishes" what does all mean? All the dishes in the country? The world? No, you probably mean all the dishes in the house (or maybe the sink).

If you say "eat all the food", do you mean all the dog food? All the rotten food? Or just the things which would be considered food to you and yours?

"All" does not always include everything. So why would Noah and his family be instructed to take clean animals in excess, but then immediately be told "nevermind you can eat whatever". It really is ridiculous.

Scripture must always be read through the lens of scripture. It is not the Word that is inconsistent, it is our understanding.

I've tried to ignore any personal attacks because "reeee you're a pharisee and you're telling me stuff I don't like" is not at all useful to the conversation.

It is rather silly to suppose that the "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs" in Genesis 9:3 really means:

"Among the animals, whatever divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud—that you may eat." (Lev. 11:3)

Those are two totally different commands.

For what it's worth, "Every moving thing that lives" does not include humans, which is made clear in Genesis 9:5-6 where murder is prohibited.

 

[Mark C]

I really appreciate your position that it is good to eat clean, but that it isn't absolutely required.

I don't 'require' it. But I read what is Written, as Written. And suggest that what He says is clear, unequivocal, and has NOT changed. Because He said so.

You don't HAVE to obey Him. You don't HAVE to believe Him, or even believe IN Him. You can choose to eat poison. Commit adultery. Bear false witness...

But He says, "choose life." And He came, (John 10:10) so that we might have life, and have it more abundantly.

The choice IS, and has always been, OURS.