Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [TruthorTradition] Re: Retelling the Christmas Story

Expand Messages
  • Sea
    Read it again Jack. It is talking about eating with unwashed hands. Why would you twist this to make it about food? Sea ... From: JACK HIGGINS To:
    Message 1 of 213 , Jan 1, 2009
      Read it again Jack.  It is talking about eating with unwashed hands.  Why would you twist this to make it about food?
       
      Sea
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 8:15 AM
      Subject: Re: [TruthorTradition] Re: Retelling the Christmas Story

      Hi
         Matthew 15:11
      Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.
         Mark 7:
      19- Because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all food?"
      20- And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man.
      21 For from within, out of the heart of men, peoceeds evil, adulteries, fornications, murders.
       
      Jack
       
       
      --- On Tue, 12/30/08, sojourning <learningtorah2001@...> wrote:
      From: sojourning <learningtorah2001@...>
      Subject: [TruthorTradition] Re: Retelling the Christmas Story
      To: TruthorTradition@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2008, 4:09 PM


      --- In TruthorTradition@ yahoogroups. com, "Peter" <zwamahn@...> wrote:
      >
      > My vote is for tradition as anyone can see.
      I would agree, it would be tradition. There is nothing in the Bible saying that God changed his instructions concerning clean and unclean meats.
      Act 10:10 And Peter became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, 11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: 12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
      So this represented the Gentiles.
      Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15 And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common. 16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
      So what the voice said was, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common/defiled/ unclean.
      Act 10:17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,
      So Peter doubted, or he was perplexed, he was at a complete loss as to what the vision meant.
      Act 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. 20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.
      So this doubting nothing could mean that he was to be at variance with himself, but I believe  it may have also meant that he was not to separate himself in a hostile spirit from those ones who God had sent to him. He was not to think of them as unclean.
      So when Peter arrives, he says, Act 10:34 Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
      So those of the nations that God had cleansed, Peter was not to think of a unclean. Cornelius was a Gentile, but he was a Gentile who feared God and worked righteousness. If one truly feared God, then he would be obeying the commandments of God. Same with working righteousness, if one was working righteousness, then he would have been doing those things that God had said was righteous.
      So Peter could go into the home of the Gentile Cornelius, because Cornelius was a God-fearer, he was a worker of righteousness. Whatever Peter would have eaten in Cornelius' home would have been clean. No ham, bacon, or pork roast. Nothing strangled, no blood, and nothing offered to idols.
      But later, probably about the 2nd century, certain ones in the Church began saying it was okay to eat things unclean. The book of Barnabas was probably one of the first, and it says that the laws concerning food all had spiritual meaning, but the Jews received them according to fleshly desire, as if he had spoken of literal meats.
       
      Concerning the scripture
      > that appear to declare all meat clean, Acts 10 is probably one of the
      > most misunderstood chapters in the Bible. Many Christians seemingly
      > refuse to take things together in context. Which is quite apparent
      > with this question because the question is answered within this very
      > chapter in verse 28 where Peter declares;
      > "And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for
      > a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another
      > nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common
      > or unclean."
      > Peter is able to determine that God was talking about men and not
      > meat at all in the dream. He realizes that the analogy of the meat
      > was symbolic of the regard Jews had for other peoples.
      >
      > Peter
      >
      > --- In TruthorTradition@ yahoogroups. com, "sojourning"
      > learningtorah2001@ wrote:
      > >
      > > So the majority of those who go by Christian say we can eat any
      > kind
      > > of meat, it is all clean. Is this truth? or is it tradition?
      > >
      > > People will say that God has made all meat clean, but yet you don't
      > > find many interested in eating a rat.
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In TruthorTradition@ yahoogroups. com, "Peter" <zwamahn@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Hello again Sea;
      > > >
      > > > I too keep to clean foods and it is originally for "religious"
      > > > reasons. Even though I have forsaken religion, I see the wisdom
      > of
      > > > what God was telling man. I have roots in both Judaism and
      > > > Catholicism, my mother's maiden name was Cohen which I'm sure you
      > > > know means priest. However it was a Christian Church that taught
      > > me
      > > > the most about clean and unclean consequently I don't call
      > > > it "Kosher".
      > > >
      > > > Peter
      > > >
      > > > --- In TruthorTradition@ yahoogroups. com, "Sea" <seawife@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Thanks for the info Tim. I don't celebrate Christmas either
      > and
      > > I
      > > > don't buy
      > > > > gifts. I do spend time with my son and his family on Christmas
      > > > because it
      > > > > is a good day to get together with all the family as we usually
      > > > congregate
      > > > > at his home because he is the only one with an in-ground
      > > swimming
      > > > pool.
      > > > > Christmas is in the middle of summer here at the bottom of the
      > > > globe.
      > > > >
      > > > > However, I am not sure I will do this again next year because
      > of
      > > > the
      > > > > offensiveness of the Christmas dinner. I don't eat there
      > > because
      > > > the meal
      > > > > is not kosher but I can just handle the ham on the dinner
      > plates
      > > > [it doesn't
      > > > > look like a pig] although I wonder how anybody can consume this
      > > > disgusting
      > > > > unclean creature. But what made me want to vomit on Christmas
      > > day
      > > > was the
      > > > > big bowl of unpeeled shrimp placed in the center of the table
      > > which
      > > > the
      > > > > family proceeded to peel and eat with their fingers. I found
      > > this
      > > > totally
      > > > > offensive and sickening and I felt my stomach heave. I had to
      > > > leave the
      > > > > area.
      > > > >
      > > > > The fact that the Christmas tables have huge platters of
      > swine's
      > > > flesh and
      > > > > all the other defiled foods supports my conclusion that the day
      > > has
      > > > nothing
      > > > > to do with Jesus.
      > > > >
      > > > > Shalom
      > > > >
      > > > > Sea
      > > > >
      > >
      >

    • Sea
      It is a shame that you claim to be a Gentile still because the covenant is made with the house of Israel. If you are not of Israel then you have no
      Message 213 of 213 , Jan 30, 2009
        It is a shame that you claim to be a Gentile still because the covenant is made with the house of Israel.  If you are not of Israel then you have no inheritance.  Paul said that one is not a Jew unles he is one inwardly.  That is having circumcision of the heart rather than of the flesh.  Gentile is just another word for a heathen.  If you are not a heathen then you are Israel.
         
        God bless
         
        Sea
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 12:14 PM
        Subject: Re: [TruthorTradition] Re: Retelling the Christmas Story

        Hi Sea
            You are correct, I do not live according to the Torah, I am not under the Torah, the Old Covenant. I am under the New Covenant, under the Grace of God, through Jesus. I trust in Christ, the Holy Spirit in me, not the Torah. I am a Gentile, not a Jew. I have never been under the Torah, and will not put myself under the Torah. I believe I am lead by the Spirit, not the Torah. Now you again are right, it does not take a genius to see I am not living by the Torah, and have never said I was. My intrest is not in keeping traditions of the OC. I live according to the Spirit in me, not what is written on paper with ink, inspiried by God, but not written by God. If all I had was the NT, if I had never read, or heard about the Torah, I would still believe as I do. I am sure judgeing by your post below you can't understand what I am saying. There is nothing I can do for the flesh, or not do for the flesh, that will in any way save my soul. When I was working, I had no problem eating my bacon sandwich with dirty hands. It did not trouble my soul in the least. Now if there was someone who could not afford a bacon sandwich, or anykind of sandwich, and I did not offer to share my bacon sandwich with him/her, dirt and all, then my soul would have been troubled. Get the picture?
        The door you clame I have opened is in your mind, you are reading in my posts what I have not put in them. How you can clame to know if I am living according to my belief system, when you can't seem to grasp what my belief system is, is way beyound me. Hopefully I have cleared that up for you?
         
        Jack
         
         


        --- On Fri, 1/30/09, Sea <seawife@...> wrote:
        From: Sea <seawife@...>
        Subject: Re: [TruthorTradition] Re: Retelling the Christmas Story
        To: TruthorTradition@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Friday, January 30, 2009, 7:59 PM

        No I am not setting standards according to my belief system.  The will of God is plainly set out in the torah.  It does not take a genius to see that you are not living according to the torah.   You are not even living according to the "living in the spirit" standards that YOU set according to your belief system.  Jack you opened the door to this and now you have to deal with it.
         
        Sea
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 2:55 AM
        Subject: Re: [TruthorTradition] Re: Retelling the Christmas Story

        Hi Sea
         what you are saying here is you know the will of God better than anyone else. You are saying if I, and anyone else who does not agree with your belief system, then they are not doing the will of God according to Sea.
         
        Jack

        --- On Mon, 1/26/09, Sea <seawife@austarnet. com.au> wrote:
        From: Sea <seawife@austarnet. com.au>
        Subject: Re: [TruthorTradition] Re: Retelling the Christmas Story
        To: TruthorTradition@ yahoogroups. com
        Date: Monday, January 26, 2009, 5:58 AM

        No it does not change what you wrote in your post.  However, as I implied in my response, you didn't take the first great commandment into account.  How can you claim to love God when you refuse to do His will?  This is why the first commandment is so much neglected by Christians while what you wrote is emphasized.  It is not I who muddies the water Jack.   
         
        Sea
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 6:39 AM
        Subject: Re: [TruthorTradition] Re: Retelling the Christmas Story

        Hi Sea
           What you have written here does not change what I have written in my post, althought you would like for it to. I have said nothing that would indicate that the second great command is greater then the first. You try to muddy the water, in order to hide the truth.
         
        Jack

        --- On Fri, 1/23/09, Sea <seawife@austarnet. com.au> wrote:
        From: Sea <seawife@austarnet. com.au>
        Subject: Re: [TruthorTradition] Re: Retelling the Christmas Story
        To: TruthorTradition@ yahoogroups. com
        Date: Friday, January 23, 2009, 10:17 PM

        Then I guess that the greatest command to love Jehovah your God is the one that need not be obeyed and our neighbours are much more important than God.  If you loved God you would not rebel.  You would cease work on the Sabbath and keep your appointment with Him.  And you would not eat the foods he told you not to eat.  But it seems that means nothing.  You transgress the greatest commandment.  But then God did only give it to Israel.  
         
        Sea
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 7:50 AM
        Subject: Re: [TruthorTradition] Re: Retelling the Christmas Story

        Hi Sea
            Sure it does. But if, "one loves His neighbor, as himself," one does not even concider if it is aginest the law, or not. They don't become hit men/women.
         
        Jack

        --- On Wed, 1/21/09, Sea <seawife@austarnet. com.au> wrote:
        From: Sea <seawife@austarnet. com.au>
        Subject: Re: [TruthorTradition] Re: Retelling the Christmas Story
        To: TruthorTradition@ yahoogroups. com
        Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2009, 7:08 AM

        Jack, in order to remove all confusion I am talking about working as a hitman.  In simpler terms a man comes to you and pays you to rub out his wife.  So does killing for a living affect your salvation?
         
        Sea
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 8:29 AM
        Subject: Re: [TruthorTradition] Re: Retelling the Christmas Story

        Hi Sea
           Have you read the Book of Job lately.
           "Does killing for a living affect your salvation through Christ." There is such a thing as killing for a living for justifable reasons. There are them who are justified by the law to kill for a living. Even the law as it was given by Moses allowed for justifieable killing.
            I really don't understand the last part of your post. The only scripture I quoted justifying the eating of swine came from the bible, which I quoted. From both the OT, and the NT. One before Moses gave the law, and one after Christ fulfilled the law. There is nothing in the ten commandments that say anything about what we should eat, or not. They are the only ones God wrote in stone.
         
        Jack

        --- On Fri, 1/16/09, Sea <seawife@austarnet. com.au> wrote:
        From: Sea <seawife@austarnet. com.au>
        Subject: [TruthorTradition] Re: Retelling the Christmas Story
        To: TruthorTradition@ yahoogroups. com
        Date: Friday, January 16, 2009, 9:39 PM


        People who observe the law because it is written in their hearts are not under the law.  Only law breakers are under the law.  Only law breakers will receive a penalty for breaking the law.  Those who do not break the law don't get penalized.  That is common sense.
         
        Does killing people for a living affect your salvation through Christ?
         
        The answer to your question is YES.  I do believe somebody gave you the Scripture that tells you that people who eat swine's flesh are consumed together with idol worshippers and all other abominations [regardless of your attempts to twist it to mean something else].  Enjoy your bacon burgers. 
         
        Sea
         
         
         
         
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 2:40 AM
        Subject: Re: [TruthorTradition] Re: Retelling the Christmas Story

        Hi Sea
           So you are saying, if I eat bacon, my salvation through Jesus is not going to happen?
        It would seem Paul is clear, if you are under the law (salvation depending on the law), then you don't get to pick and choses which of the laws you will keep and which of them you don't have to keep. "If you brake one of the laws, you have broken all the laws." I will admit, I am not as bright as you, but I see the reverse of this as, if you put yourself under one of the laws, you are bound by all the laws. Or, if your salvation depends on keeping one of the laws, then it depends on keeping all the laws. How many of the 600 + laws do you keep. Did Jesus do away with some of the laws, but not others?
         
        Jack

        --- On Fri, 1/9/09, Sea <seawife@austarnet. com.au> wrote:
        From: Sea <seawife@austarnet. com.au>
        Subject: Re: [TruthorTradition] Re: Retelling the Christmas Story
        To: TruthorTradition@ yahoogroups. com
        Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 5:22 AM

        Actually it says "sanctify themselves" and "purify themselves".  And no man can make himself holy and clearn.  And I agree that they were not eating defiled creatures for sanctification.   They were rebellious.  Put swine into the temple Jack and the blood of Christ will not go near you because the temple is defiled.
         
        Sea
         
        -----






      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.