legalism?

Post by **_glow** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:54 pm

reply to paidion You wrote:

15 If your brother is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died.
16 So do not let your good be spoken of as evil.
17 For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit;
18 he who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
19 Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for any one to make others fall by what he eats;
21 it is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble.
22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God; happy is he who has no reason to judge himself for what he approves.
23 But he who has doubts is condemned, if he eats, because he does not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
1 We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves;

These are the scriptures the man from Peta stood on with me. So are you saying I should NOT eat meat.Neither should any of us because it offends vegetarians?

Post by **_Paidion** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:15 pm

So are you saying I should NOT eat meat.Neither should any of us because it offends vegetarians?

I'm not saying a thing!

I simply quoted what I considered as Paul's most relevant writings on the subject.

Please note that besides the part with which you are concerned, I also quoted and bolded:

For why should my liberty be determined by another man’s scruples?

Post by **_glow** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:51 pm

Paidion
I'm sorry I didn't mean to offend you if I did by what I said. I didn't mean to accuse you of anything negative.

I am not used to open discussion boards and am just wondering and questioning the things that are shot back to me. I know you were just passing on scripture.It was interesting the same scriptures you put up at the end were the same ones the man from PETA gave me.

I am trying to decipher it the best I can. Alot of this scripture the way it is passed back and forth is difficult for me to undertand the way in which it is passed on discussion boards without further application.

I'm not sure why, so I ask questions.

Post by **_Paidion** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:00 pm

No problem, Glow. You didn't offend me in the least. I just wanted to clarify the fact that I was not setting out to "teach" you something about living. I leave that to the Spirit of Christ within you.

As Paul said in another place, "It is before his own Maker that everyone will stand .... or fall".

Post by **_glow** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:14 pm

Thanks.

I still have alot to learn even in just the simple ways of receiving teachings from man vs the Holyspirit and making the definition between the two. I still get lost in that some times, not only in listening but also in what to say or not to say to others myself.

I am a widow now , had a long Christian marriage ( 30 yrs) and I'm also a little more open out here in coverings so I think some times I get deceived easier. Maybe that is even a falicy ?,I may tend to be overly defensive and cautious also, I'm not sure.

But I know my true protection only comes through my Lord.

Thanks for your help though.

Post by **_livingink** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:58 pm

Hi Glow,
The pastor in one of your previous quotes would have to explain why Christ could eat a piece of fish after the resurrection if the pastor holds the "legalistic" view that eating any meat is wrong. It really does not seem to be a convincing sign of anything other than the possibility that Jesus was hungry.
Peter later was given the example of the clean and unclean animals and had to learn that there was no inherent uncleanness in anything. In both of the scripture passages Paidion quoted, Paul was expressing this same idea. In Corinth, the choicest cuts of meat could be purchased at the pagan temples after the meat was sacrificed to an idol. Since the Christian knew that idols didn't exist anyway, the stronger believer knew that there was no inherent wrong in eating the meat. But the believer who was weaker in his faith may not see it that way yet. So, out of love for the weaker brother, the stronger may not want to serve that meat to the weaker. While I can't put words into Paul's mouth, he may say to sit down with the weaker brother and explain the position of scripture on this subject with gentleness and respect for the weaker believer. Then the weaker would have adequate information to make his decision about right and wrong. I had an opportunity to sit with a believer awhile back and discuss an issue that he appeared to be "legalistic" about. After 3 hours of discussion , looking up Greek terms, etc., he was able to begin to see the possibility of holding a less staunch view and I could see his reasoning for his position. It helped us both.

Sincerely,

livingink

Post by **_glow** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:04 pm

thanks your picture planted in my mind of Christ eating a piece of fish sure brought a smile to me. Some thing so simply written but profound in truth. Thanks

Post by **_Homer** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:30 am

It really does not seem to be a convincing sign of anything other than the possibility that Jesus was hungry.

Doesn't this prove Jesus had a physical body after resurrection?

Post by **_livingink** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:36 pm

Hi Homer,

I would see it that way. I hear several of the teachers say that we can look at Christ's example as a general idea of what a resurrected body will be. I am unclear to some extent, though, on the wording that seems to give the idea that Christ walked through a closed door or wall to join with his disciples. I don't doubt that he could do that but I wonder if someone more skilled in the language used could tell me if that passage necessarily means that or if it could mean that he surprised them by appearing where they were meeting and entered the room by some "natural" means. I'm thinking here about Acts 8:39-40 where some teach that Philip was taken by supernatural means from the Ethiopian eunuch to Azotus. My dictionary tells me that the Greek does not necessarily mean that. Instead, the wording could simply mean that Philip was next seen preaching in Azotus as he made his way through the countryside from the eunuch's location. Is anyone familiar with this?

livingink

Post by **_Paidion** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:51 pm

The physical body, as we know it, cannot go through closed doors, as Jesus' resurrection body did. Also, how would a body like ours stand conditions in the upper atmosphere when He ascended.

We know that in our resurrection, our body will be like that of Christ's, for He is the "first-born of many brethren".

Paul in I Corinthians 15 describes our resurrection body in this way:

"It was sown a soulish body and is raised a spiritual body."

The resurrection body is not a spirit. Neither is it soulish (physical). Rather it is a spiritual body. It is the same body we had, but a changed body.

Lo! I tell you a secret. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment [or possibly "in the atom"], in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. I Corinthians 15:51,52