But, thankfully, you don't have to worry, because what we are to consume is "sanctified by the word of God" in Leviticus, and pork and shellfish ain't on the menu....as God did from His (labor)". What kind of rest did God take? Literal rest, and according to Hebrews 4:9-10 KJV, those resting spiritually in Jesus inwardly will rest literally and outwardly. Biblical principle and Holy Spirit conviction tells me restoring communications for first responders, telehealth, caregivers, etc., is emergency - however, new service for residential or business profit/leisure is routine. My refusal to perform such work on the Sabbath is what ultimately led to my termination.
Although that is exactly what the text says, right?
Do you understand the difference between a literal thing, a figurative thing, and a symbolic thing? Your statement here is silly because the direct text seldom explicitly points out which one it is.
No, friend, while there are other arguments to support the NT distinction between cleain and unclean meat, the burden is upon YOU
Do you understand how the burden of proof works? Your comment here is silly because if you want to declare an interpretation is necessarily the only interpretation, the burden is on you to make that case.
You've tried to show that "unclean of itself" in Romans 14:14 proves we can now eat anything that crawls across our plate
Nothing is unclean in itself. You can try to make the case that Roman 14:14's context is only toward that which is ceremonially unclean (common), but Romans 14:14 is just one of many passages that speaks to the concept that any food is permissible if our faith leads us to it and it does not jeopardize other people's faith.
You could argue that references to "all" refers only to a subset of things, but this would have to be demonstrated.
If you try to prove this from Acts 10, I'm prepared to shoot that down, as well.
Looking at your argument for Acts 10/11, you make a sound point. We have to try to interpret that section too. Are the animals literal, figurative, or symbolic?
We see at least one "unclean" set of animal listed (reptiles), which God declares clean. Based on the conclusion in Acts 11 (as a representation that nonIsraelites have been made clean) the animals have to either be figurative or symbolic (symbolic being both literal and figurative representations at the same time).
You still can't escape the fact that Acts 10 and 11 is stating that God has made many unclean (more than just ceremonially unclean) things clean. If your concept is that things like reptiles are referenced but are only figurative placeholders, this diminishes your argument that "swine" in Isaiah is necessarily literal and not itself a figurative placeholder.
Let's be clear: there's nothing about the RCC that is consistent with Scripture
People from the RCC can make unsound arguments, but that isn't necessarily an indication that the fundamental RCC doctrine is unsound.
, except that Scripture identifies the papacy (the union of the RCC and the State) as the end time Antichrist kingdom.
No it doesn't.
I keep showing you "unclean of itself" is not the proper rendering of Romans 14:14, and yet you continue to ignore solid exegesis
Do you understand that there can be multiple exegesis conclusions that are each consistent with scripture but contradict each other?
Do you understand that the square root of 4 is 2 and -2 at the same time?
If you don't understand that, you don't understand exegesis.
in order to remain contrary. Why? No it isn't. God's choice not to act in no way limits His limitless ability to act.
No, Isaiah's Messianic Second Coming prophecy which is well into the future of 1st century Paul sure does, so why do you continue to reject it? Paul says the things written aforetime pertain to us down here at the end of time, which include Isaiah's Messianic writings. Wrong again. Jesus and Paul did not once attempt to lift the prohibition against eating unclean food and Peter himself, who ate at Jesus' side 3 1/2 years, protested against the idea before Almighty God while in vision. Let's be spiritually mature, OK? Jesus was clarifying the issue of "spiritual cleanliness/uncleanliness", which the Jewish leaders claim depended on ritualistic washing, while Jesus correctly stated was dependent on faith in Him alone.
Yes, eat by faith, and Peter's faith initially led him to only eat according to his upbringing. And as his faith grew stronger, his faith would permit him to see that things were clean. There is no contradiction there. Shortsightedness becomes a stepping stone to greater understanding that is shared by many in scripture, whether it's Paul, Peter, Job, etc. By virtue of not getting it right the first time, they were able to climb to a better perspective for the benefit of everyone. And as Paul points out, just because someone does something for the sake of winning over people to faith, it doesn't mean that is a hard rule "To those under the law, I appeared as one under the law"
which is MOSAIC, NOT MORAL
I'm still looking for that special secret recipe you are using to differentiate between the "Mosaic" vs "Moral" law.
If I were to place a dividing line, I would call it the "letter of the law" vs the "spirit of the law" via 2 Cor 3:6-8. While the spirit of the law has always been valid, the letter of the law has never been the thing that leads us to life.
So far you have acknowledged Leviticus 11 and dismissed Leviticus 12 despite the structure of the commands being identical. Why is that? Because of the topic? Why does the topic make a difference in that case?
So far you have said "rest on the Sabbath" but acknowledged that "good works" is an exception. You state that you have determined what you consider to be "good works" through your conviction in the Holy Spirit, and yet you claim that others can't be led by the Holy Spirit in different ways?
"He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk." - John 5:11 KJV
