DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Biblical Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 28022--------------------------------------------------
Milk or Meat?
By: Mark W Date: May 23, 2021, 10:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So, it would seem like we are to seek the “meat,” right? The
meat of the Word is supposed to be a good thing, isn’t it? And
vv like I’d rather never eat meat again, and were tired of this
manna, give us some meat to eat! just kinda get glided over, the
first ostensibly an ode to vegetarianism, perhaps, and the
second the complaints of most anyone limited repeatedly to a
single choice of food, but i suggest that there is a direct
connection here to fruit of the tree of knowledge, and meat and
milk might need to be better defined.
As there is no phrase “meat of the Word” in the Bible, how are
you defining it? List some synonyms even, “truth, facts,
absolute truth, immutable truth” and then understand how that
might fit with the vv above. We all know that New Believer who
is Absolutely Sure of Everything, right; and manna is not called
what is it? for nothing, i bet :)
Anyway, i guess this should be made plain by a simple Bsearch of
“milk” and “meat” which ill prolly do tomorrow if someone
doesn’t beat me to it, but i bet milk will just like glow more
or whatever when contrasted
#Post#: 28025--------------------------------------------------
Re: Milk or Meat?
By: Kerry Date: May 24, 2021, 5:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=bbyrd009 link=topic=1501.msg28022#msg28022
date=1621825855]
So, it would seem like we are to seek the “meat,” right? The
meat of the Word is supposed to be a good thing, isn’t it? And
vv like I’d rather never eat meat again, and were tired of this
manna, give us some meat to eat! just kinda get glided over, the
first ostensibly an ode to vegetarianism, perhaps, and the
second the complaints of most anyone limited repeatedly to a
single choice of food, but i suggest that there is a direct
connection here to fruit of the tree of knowledge, and meat and
milk might need to be better defined.
As there is no phrase “meat of the Word” in the Bible, how are
you defining it? List some synonyms even, “truth, facts,
absolute truth, immutable truth” and then understand how that
might fit with the vv above. We all know that New Believer who
is Absolutely Sure of Everything, right; and manna is not called
what is it? for nothing, i bet :)
Anyway, i guess this should be made plain by a simple Bsearch of
“milk” and “meat” which ill prolly do tomorrow if someone
doesn’t beat me to it, but i bet milk will just like glow more
or whatever when contrasted
[/quote]I rather like the "milk and honey" description. Babies
can drink milk, but honey can make them sick or even kill them.
I think the "meat" and "milk" concept came primarily from Paul
-- but he doesn't use the phrase "meat of the Word." I also
don't think he meant the "meat" could be derived from reading
written words. He wrote, we are told:
1 Corinthians 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat:
for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye
able.
Another book says:
Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye
have need that one teach you again which be the first principles
of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk,
and not of strong meat.
13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of
righteousness: for he is a babe.
Oracles mean something oral, not written.
I wouldn't read "meat" in the New Testament to mean the flesh of
animals. It means food, so it could include what we call meat
but it would include other things too -- like "locusts and
honey."
Matthew 3:4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair,
and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts
and wild honey.
Fish and bread are also called meat.
Mark 8:8 So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of
the broken meat that was left seven baskets.
I read "milk" when discussing the Scriptures to apply to the
literal meaning first of all and then to simple but sound
principles which if applied by someone with little understanding
will result in his maturing spiritually. A spiritual master
may teach someone about three years using the milk method.
After about three years, the student should be ready to get to
the other things and may not need to rely on his master's words.
He should have made his own connection with Heaven.
Jesus taught his disciples for about three years; and notice
that he said there were some things he didn't tell them because
they wouldn't have been able to bear them.
John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot
bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide
you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but
whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew
you things to come.
I'd say from that Jesus fed them mostly with milk and the Spirit
was to feed with meat later; but what are your ideas about the
Tree of Knowledge?
#Post#: 28033--------------------------------------------------
Re: Milk or Meat?
By: Kerry Date: May 24, 2021, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=bbyrd009 link=topic=1501.msg28022#msg28022
date=1621825855]
So, it would seem like we are to seek the “meat,” right? The
meat of the Word is supposed to be a good thing, isn’t it? And
vv like I’d rather never eat meat again, and were tired of this
manna, give us some meat to eat! just kinda get glided over, the
first ostensibly an ode to vegetarianism, perhaps, and the
second the complaints of most anyone limited repeatedly to a
single choice of food, but i suggest that there is a direct
connection here to fruit of the tree of knowledge, and meat and
milk might need to be better defined.
As there is no phrase “meat of the Word” in the Bible, how are
you defining it? List some synonyms even, “truth, facts,
absolute truth, immutable truth” and then understand how that
might fit with the vv above. We all know that New Believer who
is Absolutely Sure of Everything, right; and manna is not called
what is it? for nothing, i bet :) [/quote]Me? I see the "meat"
of the Word (although I doubt you'll ever see me use the phrase)
as the Spiritual Flesh -- of the Body of Christ.
What kind of food did Israel want when tired of manna? They did
want meat or flesh -- but when they mention what they missed
eating while in Egypt, they mention fish and vegetables.
Numbers 11:4 And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a
lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said,
Who shall give us flesh to eat?
5 We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the
cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and
the garlick:
6 But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all,
beside this manna, before our eyes.
#Post#: 28040--------------------------------------------------
Re: Milk or Meat?
By: Mark W Date: May 24, 2021, 7:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=1501.msg28025#msg28025
date=1621853325]
I rather like the "milk and honey" description. Babies can
drink milk, but honey can make them sick or even kill them.
I think the "meat" and "milk" concept came primarily from Paul
-- but he doesn't use the phrase "meat of the Word." I also
don't think he meant the "meat" could be derived from reading
written words. He wrote, we are told:
1 Corinthians 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat:
for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye
able.
Another book says:
Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye
have need that one teach you again which be the first principles
of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk,
and not of strong meat.
13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of
righteousness: for he is a babe.
Oracles mean something oral, not written.
I wouldn't read "meat" in the New Testament to mean the flesh of
animals. It means food, so it could include what we call meat
but it would include other things too -- like "locusts and
honey."
Matthew 3:4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair,
and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts
and wild honey.
Fish and bread are also called meat.
Mark 8:8 So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of
the broken meat that was left seven baskets.
I read "milk" when discussing the Scriptures to apply to the
literal meaning first of all and then to simple but sound
principles which if applied by someone with little understanding
will result in his maturing spiritually. A spiritual master
may teach someone about three years using the milk method.
After about three years, the student should be ready to get to
the other things and may not need to rely on his master's words.
He should have made his own connection with Heaven.
Jesus taught his disciples for about three years; and notice
that he said there were some things he didn't tell them because
they wouldn't have been able to bear them.
John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot
bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide
you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but
whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew
you things to come.
I'd say from that Jesus fed them mostly with milk and the Spirit
was to feed with meat later; but what are your ideas about the
Tree of Knowledge?
[/quote]well for that i suspect that he who says that he knows
anything, does not yet know as he ought, and i would point to
the way we speak now, having been raised to speak in facts, or
what is now called "hegelian dialectic." (basically "Greek
thought" updated, i think)
As opposed, possibly, to what is it? as a perspective
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=1501.msg28033#msg28033
date=1621880683]
Me? I see the "meat" of the Word (although I doubt you'll ever
see me use the phrase) as the Spiritual Flesh -- of the Body of
Christ.
What kind of food did Israel want when tired of manna? They did
want meat or flesh -- but when they mention what they missed
eating while in Egypt, they mention fish and vegetables.
Numbers 11:4 And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a
lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said,
Who shall give us flesh to eat?
5 We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the
cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and
the garlick:
6 But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all,
beside this manna, before our eyes.
[/quote]hmm, but they ended up getting quail...i'll hafta reread
the end of that passage tonight :)
#Post#: 28041--------------------------------------------------
Re: Milk or Meat?
By: Kerry Date: May 25, 2021, 5:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=bbyrd009 link=topic=1501.msg28040#msg28040
date=1621901532]
well for that i suspect that he who says that he knows anything,
does not yet know as he ought, and i would point to the way we
speak now, having been raised to speak in facts, or what is now
called "hegelian dialectic." (basically "Greek thought" updated,
i think) [/quote]I think the Greek form of logic has a valid
purpose; while Hegelian dialectic is dubious.
Most people's minds never go quiet, never rest. I in my 20s
when I had an experience with my mind shutting off. Everything
in my mind had stopped. And I was standing under some glorious
tree, just experiencing it -- just seeing it and knowing it was
there without a lot of mental chatter informing me it was there
or why it was there. I was there and it was there. I could put
words to it later when my mind restarted. Hegelian logic has
too much going on for me. It reminds me of the forked tongue of
the serpent -- and of what James said about being doubleminded.
If I tell you to look at the helicopter, I am not expecting a
long drawn-out conversation about what a helicopter is, where it
came from, or what it's doing. I am hoping you take a look for
yourself and see what I see. No logic needed then. You can
perceive it for yourself. The conversation might go to other
things after that involving logic; but no amount of my using
logic is going to make you see it if you don't look around for
it. I think some spiritual truths are like that. When people
hear something said, some get it and others don't. It's like
the darkness in Genesis where half of the darkness stayed dark
while the other half became light.
Ever notice that God doesn't "say" anything after making things?
He spoke and things got made; but after they were made, no more
conversation. God "saw" that what He had made was good. Why
think or speak about something when you can relax and enjoy it,
seeing it is good?
Ever notice how many times the word "create" is used in Genesis
1? Three times. But when Hegelian logic or some other kind of
logic takes over, people will talk about the "six days of
creation" or worse "seven days of creation." People's minds
are inventing things or repeating what other people have said --
they aren't really reading the actual words.
Similarly, as you pointed out, the phrase "meat of the word" is
not found in the Bible. Where it comes from is by people
rearranging the words of Paul who often uses very complicated
logic to try to convince people of something. By contrast, I
point out that Jesus almost never used "logic" that way. Most
Scripture is not based much in logic. You read it or hear it
-- and you either get it or you don't.
Truth is seldom transmitted via logic. The real value of logic
is not to show us what is true but to show us what can't be
true. That doesn't seem Hegelian to me. Wrong ideas are like
mud on a mirror. Our minds are like mirrors -- and conflicting
ideas can't both be right -- and those wrong ideas need erasing
from the mirror of the mind. As Sherlock Holmes put it, if you
eliminate all possibilities except one, the one left, no matter
how improbable, must be right.
[quote]
As opposed, possibly, to what is it? as a perspectivehmm, but
they ended up getting quail...i'll hafta reread the end of that
passage tonight :) [/quote]First they seemed to run out of
water, and the water they found was bitter. That got changed.
Then they ran out the food they'd brought from Egypt and started
complaining. They got quails as a one time deal, but the manna
was six days out of seven in a week. Then they got tired of
that.
One thing we should remember perhaps is that before the Flood,
people didn't eat the flesh of animals -- or weren't supposed
to. But after the Flood, a covenant was made between God on one
hand and people and the animals on the other that some animals
could be eaten. It wasn't the ideal situation -- but the soul
of man was weaker after the Flood.
#Post#: 28044--------------------------------------------------
Re: Milk or Meat?
By: HOLLAND Date: May 25, 2021, 8:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=1501.msg28041#msg28041
date=1621939479]
I think the Greek form of logic has a valid purpose; while
Hegelian dialectic is dubious.
Most people's minds never go quiet, never rest. I in my 20s
when I had an experience with my mind shutting off. Everything
in my mind had stopped. And I was standing under some glorious
tree, just experiencing it -- just seeing it and knowing it was
there without a lot of mental chatter informing me it was there
or why it was there. I was there and it was there. I could put
words to it later when my mind restarted. Hegelian logic has
too much going on for me. It reminds me of the forked tongue of
the serpent -- and of what James said about being doubleminded.
. . . [/quote]
But doesn't Hegelian dialectic have a point, Kerry? Many
propositions (theses) that conflict with contrary propositions
(antitheses) seem to end up in new propositions (syntheses).
Hegelian dialectic seems to be a feature of human thought much
as Greek logic.
[quote]Truth is seldom transmitted via logic. The real value
of logic is not to show us what is true but to show us what
can't be true. That doesn't seem Hegelian to me. Wrong ideas
are like mud on a mirror. Our minds are like mirrors -- and
conflicting ideas can't both be right -- and those wrong ideas
need erasing from the mirror of the mind. As Sherlock Holmes
put it, if you eliminate all possibilities except one, the one
left, no matter how improbable, must be right.
. . .
[/quote]
Maybe not all propositions are proven to be entirely true. If a
thesis has a corresponding antithesis, perhaps a synthesis is
inevitable. If one accepts Greek logic, does that acceptance
lead to the idea that the human mind can grasp absolute truth?
Hegel may have accepted absolute ideas and that they influenced
human civilization, but I wonder if he really accepted that the
human mind can grasp absolute truth because of the logic he
supposed.
#Post#: 28045--------------------------------------------------
Re: Milk or Meat?
By: Mark W Date: May 25, 2021, 12:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=1501.msg28041#msg28041
date=1621939479]
I think the Greek form of logic has a valid purpose; while
Hegelian dialectic is dubious. [/quote]i guess I don’t know
enough about Greek thought to separate the two right now
[quote]
Most people's minds never go quiet, never rest. I in my 20s
when I had an experience with my mind shutting off. Everything
in my mind had stopped. And I was standing under some glorious
tree, just experiencing it -- just seeing it and knowing it was
there without a lot of mental chatter informing me it was there
or why it was there. I was there and it was there. I could put
words to it later when my mind restarted. Hegelian logic has
too much going on for me. It reminds me of the forked tongue of
the serpent -- and of what James said about being doubleminded.
If I tell you to look at the helicopter, I am not expecting a
long drawn-out conversation about what a helicopter is, where it
came from, or what it's doing. I am hoping you take a look for
yourself and see what I see. No logic needed then. You can
perceive it for yourself. The conversation might go to other
things after that involving logic; but no amount of my using
logic is going to make you see it if you don't look around for
it. I think some spiritual truths are like that. When people
hear something said, some get it and others don't. It's like
the darkness in Genesis where half of the darkness stayed dark
while the other half became light.
Ever notice that God doesn't "say" anything after making things?
He spoke and things got made; but after they were made, no more
conversation. God "saw" that what He had made was good. Why
think or speak about something when you can relax and enjoy it,
seeing it is good?
Ever notice how many times the word "create" is used in Genesis
1? Three times. But when Hegelian logic or some other kind of
logic takes over, people will talk about the "six days of
creation" or worse "seven days of creation." People's minds
are inventing things or repeating what other people have said --
they aren't really reading the actual words. [/quote]ha, what
a hoot! I guess I’ll haft a reread there too!
[quote]
Similarly, as you pointed out, the phrase "meat of the word" is
not found in the Bible. Where it comes from is by people
rearranging the words of Paul who often uses very complicated
logic to try to convince people of something. By contrast, I
point out that Jesus almost never used "logic" that way. Most
Scripture is not based much in logic. You read it or hear it
-- and you either get it or you don't. [/quote]@Paul, may i
suggest that sentence construction is most often being used to
obscure intentionally, as weird as that maybe sounds. I think it
is prolly by way of hiding wisdom from the wise, which allows a
hypocrite to interpret according to their hypocrisy, maybe? Thus
we get “to be absent from the body is to be present with the
Lord” even though he never said that, and etc
[quote]
Truth is seldom transmitted via logic. The real value of logic
is not to show us what is true but to show us what can't be
true. [/quote]nice imo :)
[quote]
That doesn't seem Hegelian to me. Wrong ideas are like mud on a
mirror. Our minds are like mirrors -- and conflicting ideas
can't both be right -- and those wrong ideas need erasing from
the mirror of the mind. As Sherlock Holmes put it, if you
eliminate all possibilities except one, the one left, no matter
how improbable, must be right. First they seemed to run out of
water, and the water they found was bitter. That got changed.
Then they ran out the food they'd brought from Egypt and started
complaining. They got quails as a one time deal, but the manna
was six days out of seven in a week. Then they got tired of
that. [/quote]hmm, i think they got tired of the manna first?
Then the quail?
But i suggest that those are spiritual analogies anyway...
[quote]
One thing we should remember perhaps is that before the Flood,
people didn't eat the flesh of animals -- or weren't supposed
to. But after the Flood, a covenant was made between God on one
hand and people and the animals on the other that some animals
could be eaten. It wasn't the ideal situation -- but the soul
of man was weaker after the Flood.
[/quote]the life of man was weaker after the flood? How so, iyo?
I’ve heard this before, and the evidence seems to point that
way, but it’s all anecdotal, seems like
#Post#: 28046--------------------------------------------------
Re: Milk or Meat?
By: Mark W Date: May 25, 2021, 12:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=HOLLAND link=topic=1501.msg28044#msg28044
date=1621950080]
But doesn't Hegelian dialectic have a point, Kerry? Many
propositions (theses) that conflict with contrary propositions
(antitheses) seem to end up in new propositions (syntheses).
Hegelian dialectic seems to be a feature of human thought much
as Greek logic.
Maybe not all propositions are proven to be entirely true. If a
thesis has a corresponding antithesis, perhaps a synthesis is
inevitable. If one accepts Greek logic, does that acceptance
lead to the idea that the human mind can grasp absolute truth?
Hegel may have accepted absolute ideas and that they influenced
human civilization, but I wonder if he really accepted that the
human mind can grasp absolute truth because of the logic he
supposed.
[/quote]im not sure how happy Hegel would have been with what
the Hegelian dialectic has come to mean, or maybe how it is
practiced? Or ill say that the Hegelian dialectic has taken on a
life of its own, maybe? Seems to me like we grasp—or at least
imagine—absolute truth all to readily? Don’t most believers
think their beliefs are absolute truths?
ntmy btw, im mark
#Post#: 28049--------------------------------------------------
Re: Milk or Meat?
By: Mark W Date: May 25, 2021, 1:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In the Hegelian dialectic, we pit facts (meat) against other
facts, and “synthesis” implies, basically, war, as opposed to
the eastern dialectic, or middle way, milk; is my current
conception anyway
#Post#: 28051--------------------------------------------------
Re: Milk or Meat?
By: Mark W Date: May 25, 2021, 1:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Heb 5
12Although by this time you ought to be teachers, you need
someone to reteach you the basic principles of God’s word.c You
need milk, not solid food!
13For everyone who lives on milk is still an infant,
inexperienced in the message of righteousness. 14But solid food
is for the mature, who by constant use have trained their senses
to distinguish good from evil
So, I have seen this from Paul before; he sets up a valid
suggestion, “you need milk, and not solid food” with
a...previous statement that causes one to take the suggestion
at...other than face value, maybe? Difficult to pick out, plus
we are reading in English so we may have lost something in
translation, but notice how “you need milk, and not solid food”
can be taken two ways, as either a...temporary remedy? for the
first sentence—the way we read it first—or it may also be read
that them going to meat is the reason that they need to be
retaught the basic principles! You need milk, and not solid
food, to make you able to teach, rather than as a retracting
remedy, iow. A stretch at first, I understand, but stay with me
for part two,
13For everyone who lives on milk is still an infant,
inexperienced in the message of righteousness. making it sound
bad to be an infant, and what is “the message of righteousness”
anyway? It isn’t witnessed that i can find, but the real kicker,
14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have
trained their senses to distinguish good from evil
ha, sounds like a compliment, huh?
“trained their senses to distinguish good from evil”
“fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil”
so i ask that these be contemplated in the context of “Paul
writes this way in all of his letters...”
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page