Evidence for God from Science

Just out of curiousity,

How far are you guys willing to go in support of what makes us unclean and clean? For God handed out many, many, guidelines and statutes that state what we must do to remain clean. For instance

"Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period"

If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

" 'When a man is cleansed from his discharge, he is to count off seven days for his ceremonial cleansing; he must wash his clothes and bathe himself with fresh water, and he will be clean. 14 On the eighth day he must take two doves or two young pigeons and come before the LORD to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and give them to the priest. 15 The priest is to sacrifice them, the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement before the LORD for the man because of his discharge.

16 " 'When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 17 Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening. 18 When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.

19 " 'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

Do you subscribe to these requirements? Why not? Are we still considered unclean after periods and birth and after bodily discharges? Must we still offer up doves and sacrifice? Why not?

Did Christ ever explicitly revoke these laws? (that seems to be a crucial thing to you guys...."but that passage is not really dealing with....") So I ask you....did Christ ever explicitly say that women are not unclean after periods and birth and that we don't have to be cleansed in the temple any more?

AND YET, here in the NEw Testament we have numerous places that address the issue of food and the sabbath day.

Hi Jenna, thanks for your feedback. I re-read Genesis 9 and I understand God is saying that just as plants or vegetation had formely been their food, now He is saying they may eat animals. I have always understood that prior to the flood, man was vegetarian! God is saying that now, animals may be eaten with His blessing. Obviously we don't eat ALL plants as you rightly mentioned, some are poisonous, and we don't eat ALL animals, as we prefer certain types, e.g I don't eat frogs legs, or maggots, but I know there are people who do eat things like that. I found an article on 'clean and unclean' in the Jewish Encycolopedia : 'Gen. viii. 20 says that after the flood Noah "took of every clean beast and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar that he had built to the Lord." It seems that in the mind of this writer the distinction between clean and unclean animals was intended for sacrifices only; for in the following chapter he makes God say: "Everything that moveth shall be food for you" (Gen. ix. 3).' (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 1&letter=C).
If man was ALWAYS not to EAT certain animals, wouldn't God have instigated this right at the point that animals started to be eaten?? I found another really interesting article on this subject at :
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/c ... lean.shtml
and not wanting to cut and paste too much, an interesting point it makes, is that although God distinguishes between 'clean' and 'unclean' animals, this was initially in connection to sacrifices to Him, not dietary reasons. Later on when the laws have been institued, Deut 14:21 shows how 'unclean' meats could be sold to Gentiles, 'He is illustrating that these meats are not necessarily physically harmful. And that they were designated clean and unclean only to be a token or sign of their distinctiveness as a Covenant people set apart for the service of God.'
Finally I'll end with one more quote from the above web site:
'You will note that you don't hear these same people who insist on our following this law, decrying the Lord's people planting two different kinds of seeds in a field. Or breeding two different types of cattle, or God's law that we cannot mix two types of thread in a cloth (Leviticus 19:19). These were the same "separation principle" ceremonial laws as the separation of meats. And they are fulfilled in the Lord reconciling the "whole world" to Himself in the death and resurrection of Christ. From the New Testament perspective on eating clean and unclean meats, it should be evident that the laws were a figure representing separation of God's people from the Gentiles. But with the reconciliation of all in Christ, that ceremonial ordinance has been fulfilled'.

We have liberty to choose what will take for food from what God prescribed for food,not openly and universally.Personal preferences do come ,but God has to have the final say over them,if we love Him.He has prescribed and we still have the freedom to digress or keep in line,bearing we are going to be rewarded accordingly(Rev 22 v 12)

oscarsiziba wrote:We have liberty to choose what will take for food from what God prescribed for food,not openly and universally.Personal preferences do come ,but God has to have the final say over them,if we love Him.He has prescribed and we still have the freedom to digress or keep in line,bearing we are going to be rewarded accordingly(Rev 22 v 12)

YOu haven't answered my questions. Are we to still consider ourselves unclean based on the Levitical laws for bodily discharges?

Must we still adhere to the laws in these instances? And if not....why not? And if not, why not for the body but still for food?

To answer your question, Zoe, the women in biblical times had no means of actual protection from bodily discharges. They did not have anything. They sat on something, in order to prevent blood from running down their legs. (yuck) Today we do have these protections, so we are not considered unclean. I think it was mainly a health issue back then, since anyone who touched them might come in direct contact with their blood. Since God says to abstain from blood, this was a big issue then. It is no longer an issue since no one will come in contact with blood. As far as sacrifices of doves and other animals, the reason there are no more sacrifices now is because the ultimate sacrifice has already been paid for us.

Well said jenna.After all zoe had answered herself by saying 'ceremonial',there were basically three laws in the OT:health(still binding unless health is no longer a concern),ceremonial(sacrifices and blood things-done away with by the death of Jesus) and moral-also called as the Ten Commandments,not suggestions!(binding,unless one can say morality is no issue with God)

zoegirl wrote:Just out of curiousity,

How far are you guys willing to go in support of what makes us unclean and clean? For God handed out many, many, guidelines and statutes that state what we must do to remain clean. For instance

"Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period"

If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

" 'When a man is cleansed from his discharge, he is to count off seven days for his ceremonial cleansing; he must wash his clothes and bathe himself with fresh water, and he will be clean. 14 On the eighth day he must take two doves or two young pigeons and come before the LORD to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and give them to the priest. 15 The priest is to sacrifice them, the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement before the LORD for the man because of his discharge.

16 " 'When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 17 Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening. 18 When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.

19 " 'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

Do you subscribe to these requirements? Why not? Are we still considered unclean after periods and birth and after bodily discharges? Must we still offer up doves and sacrifice? Why not?

Did Christ ever explicitly revoke these laws? (that seems to be a crucial thing to you guys...."but that passage is not really dealing with....") So I ask you....did Christ ever explicitly say that women are not unclean after periods and birth and that we don't have to be cleansed in the temple any more?

AND YET, here in the NEw Testament we have numerous places that address the issue of food and the sabbath day.

Very good Zoegirl! If we are to follow the mosaic laws, then why not all of them? If memory serves me there are 1,064 such laws (some under the same catagories) and it is virtualy impossible without a temple or at least a tabernacle.

These laws, or "suggestions", were created in the Mosaic era, true. But they were still in effect after Christ died. So can they truly be called Mosaic?

jenna wrote:These laws, or "suggestions", were created in the Mosaic era, true. But they were still in effect after Christ died. So can they truly be called Mosaic?

They were in effect and practised by whom?

jenna wrote:These laws, or "suggestions", were created in the Mosaic era, true. But they were still in effect after Christ died. So can they truly be called Mosaic?

I,ve never heard them called "suggestions" or that they were still in effect, could you enlighten me on this?

Actually Oscar said something to the effect of them being suggestions. And Peter's vision tells us that the animals were still unclean after Christ's death. I realize the vision did not actually pertain to animals being unclean, but Peter did not understand this at first, and plainly stated that he had never eaten anything "common or unclean". Acts 10:9-14.

jenna wrote:Actually Oscar said something to the effect of them being suggestions. And Peter's vision tells us that the animals were still unclean after Christ's death. I realize the vision did not actually pertain to animals being unclean, but Peter did not understand this at first, and plainly stated that he had never eaten anything "common or unclean". Acts 10:9-14.

Do you think it is possible that the kosher laws served some additional purpose in the sense that they provided a means to the Jewish Nation to see themselves as different and set apart by God?

With the taking down of that wall of separation where Paul states that there is now neither Jew not Gentile would that have any impact upon those laws and explain why Paul goes to such pains to eliminate their elevation in view of Gentile believers coming into the Church?

What do you think? Is there any scripture that would support that view?

Reason I used the word 'suggestions ' was to awaken and question the audacity of some of us in saying we determine what we eat/select as though God has not already stated what He wants from us.God's word is no suggestion,but command,it is not that I am saying the Ten Commandments or the health laws are suggestions,but am seeking to awaken those that seek to go their own way,when God has already spelt out His way.
Those that continue seeking the way of their own thoughts ahead of God's implicit word water down the strength of His commandments to simple suggestions(that is where I stand)

Oscarsiziba, I don't think anyone here is one of: 'Those that continue seeking the way of their own thoughts'. We are all reading the Bible and for some reason (very infuriating for all of us) our understanding of this topic falls into one of these two camps. I am as 'upset' or exasperated as you no doubt feel, that you and the others cannot see what to me is as clear as day. I think we will have to agree to disagree because at the end of the day only God can show us if we are in error and from the responses of everyone here, I'm sure we will come to the truth of the matter in due course.

jenna wrote:To answer your question, Zoe, the women in biblical times had no means of actual protection from bodily discharges. They did not have anything. They sat on something, in order to prevent blood from running down their legs. (yuck) Today we do have these protections, so we are not considered unclean. I think it was mainly a health issue back then, since anyone who touched them might come in direct contact with their blood. Since God says to abstain from blood, this was a big issue then. It is no longer an issue since no one will come in contact with blood. As far as sacrifices of doves and other animals, the reason there are no more sacrifices now is because the ultimate sacrifice has already been paid for us.

oscarsiziba wrote:Well said jenna.After all zoe had answered herself by saying 'ceremonial',there were basically three laws in the OT:health(still binding unless health is no longer a concern),ceremonial(sacrifices and blood things-done away with by the death of Jesus) and moral-also called as the Ten Commandments,not suggestions!(binding,unless one can say morality is no issue with God)

So your logic is that the laws were done predominantly for our protection to prevent diseases. And thus certain foods were avoided because of possible disease transmission. We don't consider women and men unclean because of bodily discharges because the NEED for the law is not there....ie we understand basic bodily hygiene and don't have to worry about it. AND THIS IS ALSO KEY....you have no problem with this EVEN THOUGH we don't have CHRIST negating these bodily regulations. Christ never explicitly (although he certainly addresses the issue personally by touching the sick and dead) addresses the issue concerning bodily fluids and yet you concede that these regulations aren't necessary. He never revokes these regulations....and yet you use this (seemingly) omission as one of your arguments to continue the dietary laws.

So by the same logic....
if the issue for the food is health and hygiene and we understand proper health and hygiene for food preparation (heating, storage, preserving, disease prevention through proper food storage and preparation...) then the laws aren't binding anymore!! And yet we DO have scripture addressing the non-issue of clean and unclean foods, whereas you are perfectly willing to discard the health regulations even when we have no statement revoking these regulations.

And both the regulations for the bodily fluids and the foods were of the same strength of law....I agree that these were laws were not suggestions....But ultimately currently you are willing to say (unless oscar, you do, I know Jenna said we don't have to follow them, I don't recall if *you* said we don;t) that we don't have to follow the bodily fluids laws....but you still maintain that we DO have to follow the food laws. Rather a mixed argument and the logic doesn't hold up...

Seems like an anemic arguement and an uneccesary one....

No one so far has provided, by the way, any evidence that the animal meat themselves are unhealthy...pork meat in and of itself is not the problem, is it...it is the parasites that are inside the meat.

And if it ISN"T about the health then the only other reason is also satisfied....Christ's work on the cross....


So you have my thoughts

We are not bound to follow the dietary laws because, by your own logic, the NEED for them does not exist....You are perfectly willing to concede the bodily regulations are moot (and if I may anticipate an argument....you might argue that we don't perfectly understand the foods and so should avoid them because God knows best....but you are willing to discard the bodily regulations even though we don't perfectly understand all of the disease transmissions inthe reprodcutive system. So shouldn't we still follow the laws because we don't know all of the diseases?)

We are not bound to follow the dietary laws and other health regulations because Christ was the ultimate atoning sarcifice that purifies us and makes us clean....

While you wish to follow these and are certainly welcome to, there is no basis in scripture to imply an obligation to these laws.

Regards