2012 and Second Coming of Christ -- hoopla

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:John317

What did God create for us to eat? See Gen. 1 and 2. God did not create animals for us to eat.

Quote:jasd

That does not compute. Genesis 1 & 2 speaks to times entirely different from ours. Moreover, Gd, Himself, was the inheritance of the Levites and He commanded that they should eat – Meat.

Did Gd err in commanding the consumption of meats; that is, animal flesh?

>>God also commanded the sacrifice of animals. But He obviously did not mean for people to continue sacrificing them forever.<<

Non sequitur. It does not follow...

>>Remember that God merely gave mankind permission for mankind to eat animals.<<

No, John317, He commanded. One only has to think - Paschal.

>>Notice by the way that God told us that we should not eat flesh with the blood in it; yet most people would not want to eat bloodless meat.<<

It is technically impossible to have meat divested of all residual blood; ipso facto, Gd’s words speak to a practical ‘draining the carcass of blood’.

>>And of course God did not say that people had to eat flesh from then on. Surely you do not believe that people are sinning if they eat no meat, do you?<<

No, of course not. I, instead, have a brief with a supposed ‘heavenly revelation’ re meat consumption (or eggs, or cheese, or chocolate, or... yikes! ) that attempts directly to refute a clear reading of Holy Writ.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Jon317

The "meats" in v. 3 are solid foods of all kinds, not necessarily flesh. The Greek word is bromata. See RSV, NIV or NASB. Compare Col. 2: 20-23.

Quote:jasd

bromata aside, and given that it indeed may mean “solid foods of all kinds” – in this passage of the pastoral to St Timothy – St Paul is here speaking of animal flesh. Moreover, St Paul seems to be speaking of not only such as rib roasts, leg of lamb, etc... but of,

pork chops!

>>The clean animals are mentioned in Gen. 7, long before the time of the first Jew.<<

Indeed, but “clean” for what purpose? Gd had not yet given man permission to eat animal flesh. And, what of “Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female;” (Gen 7:3)? Does it follow that all fowl are “clean”?

>>These clean animals are listed in Lev. 11, and include the pig. God did not tell people not to eat pig and then turn around and say it was OK to eat it.

How many of those other animals which are listed in Lev. 11 would you like to place on your dining table? Probably not many, I suspect.<<

Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

The fact that Gd gave us of every thing that liveth – to be food for us – does not necessarily translate to the fact that we are obliged to eat of “every thing that liveth” – even as we are not obliged to eat of every green herb.

>>Notice that virtually all of the unclean animals are scavengers. In other words, they eat dead animals which include those which have died of cancer and other illnesses.<<

Yet, Jesus Christ ate fish, which does, if fact eat practically any and everything they can ingest.

>>God had something better for His people to eat, and He gave it to them. He doesn't want us to have to eat scavengers. He loves us too much. If you read the medical journals, you will find that many people have died early and painful deaths because of eating pigs.<<

I agree to an extent and note that pigs carry trichinosis; that said, try, the next time you’re in the library, perusing books on raising sheep, cattle, goats, chickens, and the like. You will notice that it takes multiple pages to list the parasites and diseases of each. Lest the above be perceived as an argument for vegetarianism, bear in mind that extent to which our vegetable crops have been

genetically modified. To the good? ...don’t think so.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

(note, the above bolded in 1 Timothy 4: “every creature” does not speak of plant life.

>>The original language says, literally, "every created thing," ... obviously referring to things that God made for people to eat.<<

I stand corrected that my “every creature” may be interpreted as “every created thing” and in sense of the passage – edible.

That said, my point remains.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

and, “nothing to be refused” can mean only nothing, moreso, should it have been “sanctified by ... prayer)

Quote:John317

These have nothing to do with health practices but with asceticism, the practice of self-discipline for the purpose of earning merit.

Quote:jasd

“health practices” versus “asceticism” – how has that been arrived-at?

>>Read various introductions to the book of First Timothy and also read notes in the study Bibles at these verses. It had to do with asceticism and gnosticism.<<

Have done so and can only comment to artificial arcanery and reprise...

1 Tim 4:7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables,

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:BobRyan

Kinda funny when you look at the "sources" now proclaiming 2012.

Quote:jasd

Any chance that Jesus Christ visited the Yucatan Peninsula during His 17 ‘lost’ years.

>>sort of a "Carpenter on Tuesdays - and tourist in the Yucatan every Wednesday"??<<

We don’t know that Jesus Christ did ordinary carpentering during those 17 ‘lost’ years. He may have been a shipwright.

Wednesdays? Why not Saturdays – and a whole bunch of them, consecutively?

>>Funny that we have no mention of his being "gone" during that time before He "left home".<<

We, also, do not have later mention of his father Joseph. If a tax collector does not know who a certain person is (as may be inferred from text), it is likely that that person did not reside within the purview of the tax collector. Granted, that there is no irrefutable Biblical proof, but

it strains credulity to suppose that “Gd so loved the world that He sent His son” only to the backwaters and wadis of a nominal land.

>>But of course I know you were not suggesting that we make stuff up.<<

I agree that it is equally unsustainable to extrapolate from Writ what I proffer, as it is unsustainable to suppose that Jesus Christ resided only in His native land for the entirety of His ‘lost’ years.

Those lost years were predicated by a statement made when Jesus Christ was twelve-years old, “wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?” (Lu 2:49) There is absolutely no Biblical record of those ‘lost’ years; yet, we must assume that Jesus Christ was about His Father’s business – otherwise, He was disobedient. Was He?

The question obtaining would be – where? Where, indeed, was Jesus Christ ministering about His Father’s business during those ‘lost’ years?

>>However that line of thinking would make it appear that Christ is the source behind the coordinated messages now coming from beast, false prophet and dragon -- are you "sure" you want to go there?<<

And, how did you get there?

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Given the sophistication of the Mayan calendar – might it not have been possible that it was Jesus Christ, Himself, who gave the Mayans their calendar – and any significance derived from its suspension on 12.21.12 may, indeed, be Jesus Christ generated?

>>How about taking the much more obvious path? Pagan Mayan culture -- rife with human sacrifice and worship of false gods (that Paul calls demons in 1Cor 8) gets information from "THEM".<<

Let us also not forget that Aholibah, the bride of Gd, worshipped Moloch, sacrificed their own children, and did such evil as to ‘justify’ Sodom – yet Gd did not divorce her. And Aholah? Gd simply divorced – because of her immorality.

Gd is Gd, doing as He wills.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

That said, it is anyone’s guess what the significance of 12.21.12 is – if any.

>>At the very least it means that "those other guys" have they own game plan and that it is winding down to it's final lap.<<

As others of this list may tell you – I posit the ‘last days’ to have begun barely a quarter century ago.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:BobRyan

...but in Noah's day -- it would be a good Idea to "move closer to the boat" and when it got down to the week before the flood -- no matter how devoted you were in Bible study and prayer -- if you did not enter the Ark...

Quote:jasd

I know that the above is accepted gospel; however, a careful reading of Genesis 6 reveals that Gd had no intention of saving anyone other than the immediate family of Noah.

>>Sorta like that "40 days and NINEVAN WILL BE DESTROYED" message?<<

No, sorta like, “I WILL destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth;” – with no nuanced, “I may or I may not” in that declaration! A different finish indeed, from that of Nineveh.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

That said,

were another than an immediate family member of Noah to have attempted to enter the Ark – he, she, or it would probably have drawn the immediate attention of a destroying angel... :-o

>>At the risk of suspecting that you are - Making stuff--<<

Please read Genesis 6 again and steer me to the text where it indicates that Gd intended to save anyone other than Noah and his family.

>>Take a look at the story of Jonah.

Then notice the "conditional nature" of prophecy in Ezekiel and Jeremiah.<<

It is wise of you to have enclosed conditional nature in quote marks.