“Poisonous Animals You Can’t Eat”
In that case, you can also ridicule Christ’s words too, since, obviously, poison can defile a man, at least physically, if eaten!
Mat_15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
“Which food did God “create to be received”? God listed them:”
It is verse 4, however, which defines what creatures are to be received, which is “every.” It does not lapse suddenly into Leviticus. And it would never even consider Leviticus, as Paul is quite clear, that:
Rom 14:14 ... there is NOTHING unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
If nothing is unclean of itself, but is made so only by our conscience, so that those who would “eat all things” and those who eat “only herbs” stand on equal ground, what is there to fear of the UCG’s profitless chatter?
But, just because you can mock the Apostle by saying ‘But there are inedible creatures that are poisonous,” doesn’t mean that his “every” is less of an ‘every.” All you offer is an irrational retort against the Apostle himself, without removing the force of his message, as the meaning of the verse remains unmolested even if you, Mr.Sherlock Holmes, would say “Well, some foods are poisonous! Therefore, let us remain under the Jewish dietary laws!” But a poisonous food isn’t unclean spiritually, as if it will harm a man spiritually if he should accidentally ingest it, it’s only fatal to the body. Would you condemn Christ for saying, that we should lop off our arms or remove our eyes or genitals, in order to avoid sin? When, all he means, is that we should endeavor to mortify the flesh? You must, at least, attempt to read the scripture rationally, according to its meaning, and not continually attack all common sense with sophistry. As long as the “every” remains, you cannot rend out his message, which frees us from a law that is already removed.
You also ignored Romans 14 again, as you find another “eat ALL things” in them, which Paul places on the same grounds as those who refuse. As these things are governed by our conscience, and not by any obligation to the law.
“Yes, I did but you must have missed it.”
I did not miss it, it was just irrelevant, and all you’re doing now is repeating yourself in vain.
” “Esteeem” isnt’ worship...the greek word means to decide or distinguish.”
This is just slick talking. You did not answer anything, and there are two words:
The first is our friend “Krino,” which in this context can be translated esteem, we could say “consider”.” And then there is “Phroneo,” which Strong’s dictionary defines this way:
“From G5424; to exercise the mind, that is, entertain or have a sentiment or opinion; by implication to be (mentally) disposed (more or less earnestly in a certain direction); intensively to interest oneself in (with concern or obedience): - set the affection on,”
What does it mean that one “regards one day above another” and “esteemeth one day above another”? You define the word, accuse me of claiming it means “worship” (which I never did), but you don’t actually attempt to explain the meaning of the sense.
So, what does it mean to REGARD or ESTEEM one day above another? Doesn’t it mean... well, to REGARD ONE DAY ABOVE ANOTHER? Is that not what we do with a holyday? We observe it, we set our affection to it, and we regard it as different from any other ordinary day?
Spiritual blindness, unfortunately, makes even simple things impossible to comprehend.
Also, you still ignored the other verses that I originally provided.
“In fact Polycarp tried to persuade others not to abandon the Passover.”
The controversy had nothing whatever to do with what we are talking about, which is, whether or not Christians should not receive communion every Sunday, but should celebrate seven Jewish feast days instead annually. The question at hand was when to celebrate Christ’s resurrection, and how to do so, which some argued for one day, and others another, some for fasting this number of days, and others for more or less. And, in fact, Polycarp received communion immediately after the debate from his opponent, despite their disagreement:
“And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not.” (Irenaeus, Letter to Victor)
To celebrate the Lord’s supper with each other immediately after, not only refutes you, but shows their doctrinal and church unity with each other, which the UCG would never tolerate, as they see it as breaking “God’s law,” by not observing the 7 Jewish feasts, and ought to be celebrated once annually.
“Now that is so much more than just a superficial communion, or Eucharist, or Lord’s Supper—this is something that God says we do once a year as a memorial.”
http://www.ucg.org/beyond-today-daily/gods-holy-days/communion-or-passover
“Every instance of “break bread” in the scriptures does not mean that it was the bread and wine ceremony of Passover.”
The phrase “breaking of bread” is one directly associated with the Lord’s Supper, as seen in those other verses. And so it reads, according to Dr. Gill, in the Syriac and Arabic translations of this same verse:
“as the Syriac version renders it, “to break the eucharist”, by which the Lord’s supper was called in the primitive times; or as the Arabic version, “to distribute the body of Christ”, which is symbolically and emblematically held forth in the bread at the Lord’s table. Now on the first day of the week, the disciples, or the members of the church at Troas, met together on this occasion, and the apostle, and those that were with him, assembled with them for the same purpose; the Alexandrian copy, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read, “when we were come together”;”
You also ignore where it says “the first day of the week.” This is the day, not the Sabbath, that the church met for worship throughout the centuries.
From Ignatius, perished between 95-115AD, contemporary of Polycarp and the elder John the Apostle:
“If then those who had walked in ancient
practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer
observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives after
the Lord’s day, on which our life also arose through
Him and through His death which some men deny — a
mystery whereby we attained unto belief, and for this
cause we endure patiently, that we may be found
disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher” (Ignatius to the Magnesians, Ch.9)
From the Epistle attributed to Barnabas, written as late as 130AD:
Moreover God says to the Jews, ‘Your new moons and Sabbaths 1 cannot endure.’ You see how he says, ‘The present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but the Sabbath which I have made in which, when I have rested [heaven: Heb 4] from all things, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world.’ Wherefore we Christians keep the eighth day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared ascended into heaven. (15:8f, The Epistle of Barnabas, 100 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 147)
Justin Martyr again, about 150AD:
“But Sunday is the day on which we hold our common assembly, because it is the first day of the week and Jesus our saviour on the same day rose from the dead.” (First apology of Justin, Ch 68)
This had nothing to do with clean or unclean food. It had to do with ritual washings:
Mat 15:1 Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying,
Mat 15:2 "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."
Jesus was condemning the ritualistic, non-biblical practices and traditions of the scribes and Pharisees. His point was that if you're worried that a little speck of dirt or something else is going to make you "unclean" then don't worry about it..that little speck is going to come out when you go the bathroom.
You're suggesting, again based ONLY on warped view of this through the prism of tradition, that Christ was saying it's okay to eat pork. This is ridiculous since scripture SHOWS what he was talking about, hand washing. And IF he was suggesting they could eat pork then the scribes and Pharisees had him....he was NOT God or God's prophet because he was specifically violating a law of God. But they didn't do or say anything like that because it's not what Jesus meant and it's not what they understood.
You would do well to learn the difference between "koinos" and "akathartos". The word translated "unclean" here in Roman 14 is "koinos"...ritually unclean.
It means that...something normally clean that is made koinos, or common, by association with something akathartos, inherently unclean. The foods that God designed as unclean are akathartos, not koinos.
Paul said that there is nothing, in his opinion, that is ritually unclean. And he's right. No matter what happens to beef, it's going clean. I can rub a piece of pork on it...that doesn't make it unclean. But jews then and now believe that clean meats can be made unclean by accidental contact. It's why kosher observant jews have two kitchens or at least two sets of utensils...one for meat and one for dairy in order not to violate what they believe to be a prohibition against mixing the two in food preparation.
Pauls' challenge was to help the jewish Christians to distinguish was was written in God's law about clean and unclean versus what their tradition had added to it.
This ritual uncleaness, koinos, is what the kosher laws are all about.
You might want to read about basic kosher
Also see Understanding Acts 10 and Understanding Unclean in Romans 14
Do you ever actually STUDY the bible or just blindly accept what people tell you?
Even a cursory study will give you the context of what God was talking about:
Isa 1:11 "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?" Says the LORD. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle. I do not delight in the blood of bulls, Or of lambs or goats.
Isa 1:12 "When you come to appear before Me, Who has required this from your hand, To trample My courts?
Isa 1:13 Bring no more futile sacrifices; Incense is an abomination to Me. The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies— I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting.
Isa 1:14 Your New Moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; They are a trouble to Me, I am weary of bearing them.
Is this God condemning HIS new moons and sabbaths? No, it's YOUR new moons and sabbaths. God is upbraiding and chastising Israel for defiling his holy sabbath.
Isa 1:4 Alas, sinful nation, A people laden with iniquity, A brood of evildoers, Children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the LORD, They have provoked to anger The Holy One of Israel, They have turned away backward.
Israel was vile, evil and corrupted and it was hypocritical and the shameful of them to pretend to worship God when their behavior, spirit and attitudes showed they clearly were NOT worshiping God.
Tell me what the greek phrase "first day of the week" literally translates to in English...
Again, there are specific greek words used to denote the holy days of God. They denote no other. There are also specific greek words that mean "to observe God's holy days".
In the context of the entire CHAPTER this has nothing to do with those days. You've lifted a verse completely out of context and applied a modern day meaning to it.
You totally disregard that the entire focus of the chapter is on days that are associate with food:
Rom 14:5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.
You not only do that, but you also are saying that Paul is saying that disregarding the holy days of the Lord Jesus Christ is just peachy. This not only violates commmon sense, but scripture in multiple places. Paul said:
Act_24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.
Unless Paul was lying to their faces he totally believes what God wrote in scripture about the holy days. And of course he did because he observed them:
1Co_5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast [HEORTAZO), not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
And here:
Act_18:21 but took leave of them, saying, "I must by all means keep this coming feast[HEORTE] in Jerusalem; but I will return again to you, God willing." And he sailed from Ephesus.
Who to believe? Paul and Jesus Christ...or some guy who looks at a scripture, lifts it out of context, and applies a 21st century belief to a 1st century situation?