Discussion for this week.... Lev. 11:1-8, 44-45
Leviticus 11: 1-8, 44-45
The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Say to the Israelites: 'Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud." 'There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. The coney, [a] though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground. I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.
==============
Thanks for everyone coming and God bless you this week! Keep the discussion going here!
What is the purpose of the law? What do we not follow the diet part of the law today? Does this mean the law is meaningless today for us (Christians)? What was it exactly that was said in scripture in the New Testament that most of us use to explain why we can eat the foods that were told to be unclean in the OT? Thanks and see yall next Friday @ 7:00 @ Starbucks...Until then God bless ya!
posted by DGH @ 9:16 AM
18 comments
18 Comments:
We had an interesting discussion in our Sunday school class yesterday. We were discussing how we perceive God in the old and new testament. In the old he is perceived to be a "hard" God. In the new he is perceived to be a "kind" God. The more I think about it. I think our [my Sunday school class] perception is wrong. God didn't change we changed. I think this ties in nicely with the food laws. The traditions changed but God didn't. Thoughts?
yeah, but have we really changed? are there some things that never change (in humanity, I am speaking)? yes traditions change...and funy how some peope fight and would risk the loss of family, home, and even chruch all for keeping the traditions, heh....
let me think some more...hmmmm..
Hum. I guess you are right. We haven't changed but why do we have a different perception of God? I do not believe God's character has changed. So why do some think of him as a "kind" loving God in the new testament? The more I think about it. The more I realize that God hasn't changed between the testaments. He wants the same thing. He wants his people to love him and be holy.
I have a feeling that this "kind" good buddy God" talk is more from a Western world view..but I am not sure...I wonder what the concept of God (by Christians) is in China, or any other country that is trully persucuting (sp?) the Christian Chruch....
And I see several times where Christ doe snot speak "good buddy talk"....
"Matthew 10:32-40 2 "Everyone who acknowledges me publicly here on earth, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven. 34 "Don't imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword. 35 'I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 Your enemies will be right in your own household!' 37 "If you love your father or mother more than you love me, you are not worthy of being mine; or if you love your son or daughter more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. 38 If you refuse to take up your cross and follow me, you are not worthy of being mine. 39 If you cling to your life, you will lose it; but if you give up your life for me, you will find it. 40 "Anyone who receives you receives me, and anyone who receives me receives the Father who sent me. " comes to mind and so it begs the queston...has humanity (the church through history) always thoght of Christ as the "good buddy"? i wonder if nationality, gender, race, government, economics, etc.... has anything to do with it?
I have the same thoughts. I wonder what other Christians would think of our prayer journals, bumper stickers and air conditioned worship services? I've often wondered what kind of Christian I would be in a country that outlawed my faith.
yeah and how your perceptions of the world and your preceptions of God would be different than it is now.
First off, let me just say that the picture of the hot dog looks dang good.
I wonder if the (false) dichotomy between "angry" God and "happy" God isn't due in large part to the view that most Christians have of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments?
You may be onto something John. For a long time. I held the view "Who needs the old testament? We got the new." I've come to the conclusion that this view may be a bit misguided. If not, down right wrong. I believe in Christ's coming. He extended the covenant to us gentiles but that didn't negate the old testament covenant. Hummm, so now we are back to the purpose of the laws in the old testament. Clearly we do not have to follow those laws. This was the conclusion the apostles came to under God's direction. I need to think about this some more... my head hurts now:)
I agree John, considering that even in this discussion we are making a seperation, but when did this shift from old to new occur? I doubt that the 1st-8th centuries saw a break between them...and how could we go back to viewing scripture as one cannon instead of OT and NT?
I would like to clairfy a statement I made. "Clearly we do not have to follow those laws." Those laws are the ritual laws, ie food laws. Clearly, Christ has given his followers commandments to follow.
I think the two issues that I have are these: 1. Believing there was a difference between the old and new testament. 2. Trying to work out a theological framework for the perceived difference between the old and new testament. In other words I missed the forest for the trees.
Again my head hurts.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
So when I was in college, I was involved with Inter Varsity (campus Christian organization). A vegetarian girl walks up to me and asks, "You're supposed to be a loving Christian! How can you kill animals and eat them?"
I said to her, "If God didn't want us to eat pigs, why did he make them so yummy?"
LOL, now that's funny!
"but when did this shift from old to new occur? I doubt that the 1st-8th centuries saw a break between them"
It would be a really interesting project to look at the history of interpretation of the relationship between OT/NT. Shoot man, you could get a PhD out of this!
There are some Gnostic texts (3rd century-ish) that talk about a difference between the "Jewish" God and the Christian Jesus (they don't talk about the difference between OT and NT since the NT wasn't completed yet). Basically, their argument is that the physical world, created by the Jewish God, is deeply flawed. Redemption for the world came through Jesus, who did not come to earth as a human, but only in the appearance of humanity.
There are also some early texts, especially around the time of the formation of the canon (4th century) that talk about the relationship between OT and NT, but I can't think of them right now. Seriously, someone should do some research on this.
Now, if I could get my employer to pay for a PHd. That would be cool:)
It would be interesting to see when the "split" occured. I wonder if it was before the church started forcing Jews to convert to Christianity in Europe?
Dang! Ya sure do a lot of talking in one day, heh... yea it would be a very col research subject, and one that I think a lot of peple would find very interesting...at the very least a magazine article out of it, heh....
Still it is interesting noe the less...thanks for your input John with the extra biblical texts....I wonder if I could forward this convo. over to an Asbury Seminary professor and see whatthey think? Anyway thanks for the discusion...now if we could just get everyoje else on here...I know that Court would love this discussion!
going back to an earlier theme...
I think some of the lack of clarity regarding Christians and the law has to do with the unfortunate translation of "Torah" as "law." That is to say, when Paul talks about "law" as the old covenant, perhaps he has in mind something larger than the notion of "law" as the rules laid out in Exod, Lev and Deut?
Christ came to fulfill the Torah. Now that makes more sense than saying to fulfill the law. Humm.... John maybe you should go into the translation business:)
Post a Comment
<< Home