Shrimp

[Bravus]

(it occurred to me that maybe, just maybe, Woodie's neighbour gave him those shrimp just so that we could have this conversation!)

[John317]

Still... "Peter, kill and eat!". Was it a sin for Peter to disobey... three times?

No, of course not.

As said before, the command was given in a vision, and thus there was no real command, nor was obedience expected in terms of the killing and consumption of the wild beasts and creeping things.

It was a symbolic command, and had nothing to do with eating animals but entirely with people.

Peter gained insight into himself and his fellow-Jews because of how they had rejected the gentiles. It would take a while before Peter learned the lesson completely.

[Dr. Shane]

From my understanding of Paul, we are free from the condemnation of the law. That is not to say we are free to live in disobedience. It means that once we are justified we no longer are condemned by the law. The law still plays a role in our Christian walk with God but its role is no longer that of condemnation. Thus I am free from the curse of the law but the law is still relevant in my spiritual life.

[Bravus]

And that, of course, is the eternal conundrum on which I would guess over 80% of all posts in this forum in its entire history have been expended.

[John317]

[Paul] repeatedly makes the point that it is the weak of faith who wrap themselves up in a blanket of rules and laws, and the strong of faith are free. The truth sets us free.

The gospel frees us to obey God and fulfill His plan for our lives. Therein lies the true freedom that results from the gospel. Faith in Christ doesn't free us from obedience to God's commandments. It frees us to love one another. It frees us to be our true selves, to realize our human potential, which can only be discovered in a personal, faith-based, loving relationship with Christ.

Satan wants us to believe that freedom means I can go my own way rather that God's way. True freedom NEVER means going against God's will. And God's will is His law. Heb. 10: 7; Ps. 40: 8.

Quote:

In this context Paul sets himself against a whole raft of Jewish laws, both those stated in the OT and those that the Jews had added.

Yes, he certainly taught against the Jewish traditions. And He likewise taught against the idea that people are justified, or set right with God, by means of law-keeping. He taught exactly what the rest of Scripture teaches, which is that true righteousness by faith is manifested in the keeping of God's commandments.

Quote:

He clearly states that we are not under the law but under grace.

And we know that being under grace does not mean we have a license to disobey God's law. Romans 6: 1, 15-- "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?... Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!"

Quote:

Will that make us licentious? No - because we will be living by the Spirit.

I agree. Because the Spirit of God leads us to obey God's law, not disobey it. Gal. 5: 22, 23. "Sin shall not have dominion over you , for you are not under law but under grace" (Romans 6:14).

Quote:

But are we still bound by those laws? No.

But since I am not "bound" by those laws-- whether they are moral or health laws--if I want to disobey those laws, am I not then completely free to do so?

The bottom line-- and I believe we are in agreement on this- is that faith in Christ does not release us from obedience to God's commandments. God never intended disobedience to be the result of faith in Him, yet that is what often happens and how the grace of God is perceived in our world.

[John317]

John, again you bring up the extreme view that I don't claim! I'm not making an statement that you should not obey when you can't absolutely beyond the shadow of a doubt understand everything.

The point is that God does not desire your obedience for the sake of obedience. He wants you to do it out of love. If you are doing it just to win favor with God... it's like telling your wife that you've married her to appear to be a good guy, but you don't really love her. You did it out of guilt.

Likewise with God, if we demand that people do things out of duty, without understanding and love... what different is it than God simply creating robots to love him? I hardly think that this is the case.

Of course. I have never meant anything different. God wants us to understand the reason for doing things, but there are times when we can't know, yet true faith will at such times still cause us to want to obey Him.

For instance, we don't know all the reasons for the things that Ellen White wrote regarding the health message, but Adventists who had faith in God's revelations through her obeyed even before medical science confirmed her writings.

People who read in faith what she wrote about cigarettes didn't smoke, even though they had no proof that it could cause cancer. The same with many instructions she gave on the basis of her visions on health.

Actually, the same principle applies to the Bible. For thousands of years, people were asked to obey God's health laws without really understanding the reasons for them, yet those who obeyed them were blessed. God knew what He was talking about. He made us and knows what is best for us.

[Woody]

Well ... when Blanche got home and discovered Shrimp in the fridge ... she said Yuck and got rid of the stuff. No shrimp in her kitchen. So, forget the starvin children in China. Sorry.

PS. What kind of a war did I start. Honestly folks ... I am innocent. I had no intentions of this thing happening. I thought it was an innocent question. Perhaps though, I should have known better. Oh well.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Eating it accidently is a totally different question, of course.

I'm not aware of any evidence in the Bible or in Ellen White's writings that we become ceremonially unclean from eating unclean meat, whether Pork or shrimp.

The point about someone's generosity, that doesn't seem to me to be a good reason to do something against your principles if they are based on what the Bible teaches. [/quote']

1Cor 10:27. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

That seems pretty clear to me.

The context has nothing to do with healthful food but has to do with eating food which had been offered to idols. See 1 Cor. 10: 19-21.

Paul is saying we don't need to pay attention to false gods and idols since they don't exist or have any power anyway. The only reason we should refuse to eat such food is if there is reason to think our eating it may cause someone to stumble spiritually.

But again, the entire passage is related to food offered to idols and is not concerned with the unclean foods listed in Lev. 11.

[Gail]

But that shrimp which was rejected did amuse us for a whole day!

Seriously, though- I appreciated the discussion :)

[John317]

Well, in the case of Jose Rojas' mom, what would she have thought if he says 'Oh, I don't eat that, sorry'. She comes from a culture that didn't understood such a thing.

'Not eat this?? Why not?? I spent all day cooking for you! I feel did something special for you and you insult me? This is a man of God?'

I've eaten at many non-Christian and non-SDA tables and have never seen anyone react this way. Most people are very thoughtful and gracious when they have people over to eat.

When I have people come to my house for dinner, I don't feel the least bit upset if they dislike something.

It's not an insult if someone says they don't like pork or any other kind of food. I hear meat-eaters often say they don't eat pork or some other kind of meat. Some say they don't like vegetables. It's OK.

One of my best friends loves snails and uncooked fish of all sorts. He doesn't like vegeburgers, and it's OK if he says so.

[Woody]

But that shrimp which was rejected did amuse us for a whole day!

Seriously, though- I appreciated the discussion

Yes. I enjoyed it for the most part also. Although it is getting just a bit heavy now which was not what I had intended. But, that is the nature of the beast here.

[John317]

Quote:

It was a vision, so Peter could not possibly have gotten up and killed the animals. Peter was not responsible for what happened in his vision. It was an illustration.

After the vision, it was clear that God did not want Peter to eat those animals. Peter understood the purpose was to teach him not about animals about about non-Jews.

You are evading my question, John. Peter could have in a vision got up, killed and ate... mentally at least. But he did not, because he noticed God contradicted Himself, so he refused. Was it wrong for him to refuse God's command?

In the vision, Peter could have gotten up and killed and ate only if God made that happen in the vision. The prophet is not in control of what God shows in vision. The prophet is completely passive. His reasoning, or even his subconscious mind, was not in control of what he did in the vision, so we cannot say that the reason he did not eat the animals was that he noticed God contradicted Himself. The reason he did not get up and eat was simply that this is what God showed him in vision.

It was never God's intention for Peter to consider it as an actual command to eat those wild animals, and therefore it is nonsense to think that it may have been a sin for him not to eat them.

But let us say that "God" gave an actual command to Peter to go out and kill a pig and eat it. He could be sure that it is not God, just like we could be sure it is not really God who might appear to us and tell us to keep Sunday instead of the Sabbath. If "God" told you to kill a pig and eat it, you can be sure it is not God but Satan or one of his demons.

[Neil D]

It was never God's intention for Peter to consider it as an actual command to eat those wild animals, and therefore it is nonsense to think that it may have been a sin for him not to eat them.

But let us say that "God" gave an actual command to Peter to go out and kill a pig and eat it. He could be sure that it is not God, just like we could be sure it is not really God who might appear to us and tell us to keep Sunday instead of the Sabbath. If "God" told you to kill a pig and eat it, you can be sure it is not God but Satan or one of his demons.

ok, the following question will throw everyone into another raging theological tizzy...So here it comes....

Why did God use that vision to convey that the Gentils were also saved?

Why not just plainly tell Peter, "Hey Pete, I got some other children coming to talk to you. Please instruct them in My ways. And Pete, they ARE my children. They are not from your culture and...now, Pete, drop that cultural attitude. It's not My way...These gentiles are My children, just as you are. Arise, and go meet My other children."..?

It seems to me, that God could have told Peter another way to convey His love toward the gentiles...So, in light of this background, why did God say that it was ok to kill and eat what was once concidered unclean...?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

It was never God's intention for Peter to consider it as an actual command to eat those wild animals, and therefore it is nonsense to think that it may have been a sin for him not to eat them.

But let us say that "God" gave an actual command to Peter to go out and kill a pig and eat it. He could be sure that it is not God, just like we could be sure it is not really God who might appear to us and tell us to keep Sunday instead of the Sabbath. If "God" told you to kill a pig and eat it, you can be sure it is not God but Satan or one of his demons.

ok, the following question will throw everyone into another raging theological tizzy...So here it comes....

Why did God use that vision to convey that the Gentils were also saved?

Why not just plainly tell Peter, "Hey Pete, I got some other children coming to talk to you. Please instruct them in My ways. And Pete, they ARE my children. They are not from your culture and...now, Pete, drop that cultural attitude. It's not My way...These gentiles are My children, just as you are. Arise, and go meet My other children."..?

It seems to me, that God could have told Peter another way to convey His love toward the gentiles...So, in light of this background, why did God say that it was ok to kill and eat what was once concidered unclean...?

How about God's telling Hosea to go marry a whore? (Hosea 1: 2) Couldn't God have gotten the point across differently? Maybe that is telling me it's OK to have relationships with prostitutes and whores.

That is interesting speculation, but we need a firmer foundation than mere speculation to base our theology on. As a people, we need a clear (and for some, boring) "thus saith the Lord" in the Bible and in the Spirit of Prophecy.

The important points are that Peter did not interpret it as having to do with food but with people, and there's no indication of a change afterwards of Peter's diet. You may be sure there would have been some mention of it if Peter had begun to consume "four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air," etc.

If we are interested in speculation, then we might decide that God probably wants us to go out and have a good ham. But Peter never saw it that way, apparently. Did Peter misunderstand? Did God's message get confused? There's no record that Peter or Paul taught that we can now eat pork and all the other animals on the list of Lev. 11. Can you imagine the furor caused by Paul, a Jew, if he had taught that everyone can now eat anything they want, including pigs? Certainly Acts 21: 15-25; 24: 5-21; and 25: 8 could not have been written if Paul was eating pigs and teaching others to do likewise.

People who want to believe that the dead go straight to their rewards ask the same questions about the parable (or non-parable/ i.e., literal history) of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Why didn't Jesus give the lesson in some other way?

Why did God give the visions exactly the way He did to Joseph, Daniel, Ezekiel, John, etc.? Couldn't He have done it a different way? Well, certainly He could have. He could have done many things differently.

He could also have had the Bible written in an entirely different way than He did. Why all the difficult passages that cause doubt and questionings? Why did He allow those verses in the Bible that appear contradictory?

There are a lot of ideas proposed to answer the questions but we won't know for sure until we can ask the One who inspired the Bible to be written.

[John317]

But that shrimp which was rejected did amuse us for a whole day!

Seriously, though- I appreciated the discussion

Me too. And now I am off to get a good hamburger (beaf!) or fish sandwich.

[GoLions]

A my work, we have a "potluck" every month to celebrate birthdays. For our company meetings they order in food. Everyone knows that I am vegetarian,and they make a point to show which foods would be OK for me to eat. Now we have a Hindu and a Muslim at my work, (vegetarian, non pork eaters). I have made the path for them much easier for them to keep their beliefs. I always thank them for their kindness, and tell them they didn't need to do anything special for me.

The important part for me, is that it gives me a chance to talk about the God I serve. Like jewelry or the sabbath, it is all about getting people to know about my Jesus. Its not about me, its all about him. Listen, I believe that Jesus is coming soon, and people are dying without knowing who Jesus is. Are we going to be like Daniel, and not defile ourselves with the kings food. Will we be like the three young Hebrew boys that didn't bow down to the golden image? Faith is to great of a topic to be taken lightly. Be faithful, be prayerful, Bible reading/believing Christians. I often wonder if I will be able to stand, It seems impossible for me, I am too weak. If I have any chance at all, it will be if I can be faithful today, and then tomorrow and then the next day...

Have I eaten unclean meats since I new better, yes, but only when I did not know it was in it. Would I have eaten the shrimp, no. Would I give it to someone else, no. If its no good for me, then its no good for someone else. When I first heard that pigs are unclean, I was dating a girl in California, whose parents had a pig farm. They were OK with me not eating pork.

[Dr. Shane]

Mexicans eat cow-stomach soup. I am thinking God should have made that unclean. Of course, Americans eat cow-stomach hot dogs. So the cultures really aren't that different.

[John317]

I was eating that cow-stomach soup on New Years morning at my future in-laws but I had no idea what it was. I ate about half of it, and it didn't seem half bad, but then I had to ask what everyone was eating. When they told me the white pieces were from the stomach of cows, they all laughed because my facial expression showed clearly how I was feeling about then. They weren't at all upset or insulted. They gave me cake to eat instead, which is another of their traditions on New Year's morning.

We make a vegetarian kind of menudo. I like it much, much better.

[John317]

You bring up some very mportant observations and thoughts, GoLions. I completely agree with you.

I've lived in both worlds-- the non-Christian and the Adventist worlds, and believe me, there are millions of people who would love to know the Bible truths we know. If we pray about it, God will send people to us who want to learn, but we have to be willing to tell them and not be "embarrassed" about our beliefs and practices.