Progressing from Milk to Meat

Sep 7, 2019
163
141
43
55
North Carolina
Thank you kindly, but I found no offense. I simply no longer wish to participate in a thread in which I see the potential for others to question their faith.
 

rtm3039

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Senior Moderator
Feb 5, 2019
961
685
93
Miami, FL
Thank you kindly, but I found no offense. I simply no longer wish to participate in a thread in which I see the potential for others to question their faith.
Thank you both for contributing and I sure do understand the concern. Much was discussed and much to think about. Maybe this discussion has reached its logical conclusion and we just move on. Now we can tackle another of my great questions: Why do we call a building a "building," after it's already been built?

One last comment:

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight." Proverbs 3: 5 - 6 (NIV).

Blessings to all

rtm3039
 
Dec 19, 2014
5,696
2,431
113
New Zealand
www.literatelibrarian.com
If I had a dollar for each time I heard someone use this phrase to add thousands of years to the biblical, six-day Creation I could have retired a long time ago.

First, the Bible does not say, “With God one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day.” The apostle Peter actually wrote in 2 Peter 3:8.....
“Beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is AS a thousand years, and a thousand years AS one day” .

Peter used a figure of speech known as a simile to compare a day to a thousand years. It is not that one day is precisely equivalent to 1,000 years or vice versa. Rather, within the specific context of 2 Peter 3, one could say that they share a likeness.

Bible understanding is Always determined by the CONTEXT.
T
he context of 2 Peter 3? In this passage, Peter reminded Christians that “scoffers” would arise in the last days saying, “Where is the promise of His [Jesus’] coming?” (vss. 3-4). Peter declared: “[T]he heavens and the earth...are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men” (vs. 7). Regardless of what the scoffers alleged about the Second Coming, Peter wanted the church to know that “the Lord is not slack concerning His promise [of a return], as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (vs. 9).

Sandwiched between these thoughts is the fact that the passing of time does not affect God’s promises, specifically the promise of His return. If Jesus promised to return 1,000 or 2,000 years ago, it is as good as if He made the promise yesterday. Indeed, “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

With men, the passing of long periods of time generally affects their keeping of promises, but not with God. Time has no bearing on whether He will do what He said He would do: “a thousand years are like a day”.
You dont need to point out the obvious Major. its the principal of God seeing time differently to man. If we talk aboht what God did in the past the point is HE did it. And it doenst matter if it took a long time or a short time. It was a short time to him, and seems like a looong time to us.
 
Dec 19, 2014
5,696
2,431
113
New Zealand
www.literatelibrarian.com
Thank you both for contributing and I sure do understand the concern. Much was discussed and much to think about. Maybe this discussion has reached its logical conclusion and we just move on. Now we can tackle another of my great questions: Why do we call a building a "building," after it's already been built?

One last comment:

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight." Proverbs 3: 5 - 6 (NIV).

Blessings to all

rtm3039
I think people call a building a building if they dont actually know what type of building it is. Also it could be unfinished and they not sure what its going to be used or, or nobodys inhabiting it.

I personally like to be specific in my langauge and call a spade a spade not a tool thingy.
 
Sep 3, 2009
12,058
4,644
113
Florida
You dont need to point out the obvious Major. its the principal of God seeing time differently to man. If we talk aboht what God did in the past the point is HE did it. And it doenst matter if it took a long time or a short time. It was a short time to him, and seems like a looong time to us.
It seems that I do as what you just posted is exactly what my point has been all along.
 
Sep 3, 2009
12,058
4,644
113
Florida
Thank you kindly, but I found no offense. I simply no longer wish to participate in a thread in which I see the potential for others to question their faith.
I am not going to contribut to this thread any more. I would like how ever to say that if we as Christians do not discuss the more difficult things in life, and be prepared to give an answer to those who ask, then we and they will always be drinking MILK instead of eating MEAT which was the original focus of the thread.

I really do not know how talking about the difficult things in life would have anyone question their faith but that is just my opinion. If talking about things of life and if they would cause someone to question their faith, then maybe their faith is really in question.

May the Lord bless you and you Have a glorious day and I am sure we will talk at some other time about something else.
 
Sep 7, 2019
163
141
43
55
North Carolina
Ah, and the beauty of division between the more logical minds and the loving ones reveal themselves in the backdrop of discussions.
I personally find no biblical topic too difficult. I do however remember this is a public forum being read by others whom I have posted with on many other sites, whom are not members here. Therefore I will continue to try to refrain from placing stumbling blocks in the minds of others.

No one has to like that, but here it is. I will stand firm on the foundation of Christ on this one.
 

aha

Nov 18, 2011
1,419
383
83
This discussion makes me wonder, and I google a bit of course :)

I clicked the thread titled “Milk to Meat” and I really wonder how it came to be mentioning Science, Big Bang, etc.

“Milk to Meat” verses imo* deals verses with what is right and what is wrong. *My personal opinion/ interpretation on that verse.

Study of the Law., Justice or Law deals with what is right and what is wrong.

Thus, makes me wonder to ask: is the study of Law is a Science?

IMO: Law is in search of what is righteous, of what is right and what is wrong, or can be said as well, in search of Truth (truth of what will be the correct judgment on a matter)

Thus, am currently reconciling how it came to be that this thread mentioned Science, Big Bang and evolution.

Science as well seeks the observable "truth". In terms of natural which is more of a “Natural Science”.

Science in its old definitions, not really obsolete but will still help in categorizing topics as well: there is SOFT Science as well as HARD Science.

HARD Science deals with “Natural” ie Nature, while Soft Science deals "INTANGIBLE" with, say repeatable experiment such as ECONOMICS, if you spent 15$ and you sell 12$, it surely (Scientifically or arithmetically proven” one will lose money :)

My personal opinion: study of "Milk to Meat" is a study of Law, of what is right and wrong, and it is not Science. More so: Grace, Mercy and Forgiveness is beyond Science :)
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: thenami

rtm3039

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Senior Moderator
Feb 5, 2019
961
685
93
Miami, FL
I think people call a building a building if they dont actually know what type of building it is. Also it could be unfinished and they not sure what its going to be used or, or nobodys inhabiting it.

I personally like to be specific in my langauge and call a spade a spade not a tool thingy.
Greetings Lanolin,

Maybe it's a cultural thing, but we here tend to call a building a building, regardless of what it's intended purpose is. Even if we know the purpose, we still call it a building: The Bank of America building, etc. Besides that, my comment was more along the lines of a joke. Kind of like why do they say a man is "getting dressed," when he really is not putting on a "dress."

rtm3039
 
  • Like
Reactions: Major
Feb 10, 2015
844
997
93
Maryland
This discussion makes me wonder, and I google a bit of course :)

I clicked the thread titled “Milk to Meat” and I really wonder how it came to be mentioning Science, Big Bang, etc.

“Milk to Meat” verses imo* deals verses with what is right and what is wrong. *My personal opinion/ interpretation on that verse.

Study of the Law., Justice or Law deals with what is right and what is wrong.

Thus, makes me wonder to ask: is the study of Law is a Science?

IMO: Law is in search of what is righteous, of what is right and what is wrong, or can be said as well, in search of Truth (truth of what will be the correct judgment on a matter)

Thus, am currently reconciling how it came to be that this thread mentioned Science, Big Bang and evolution.

Science as well seeks the observable "truth". In terms of natural which is more of a “Natural Science”.

Science in its old definitions, not really obsolete but will still help in categorizing topics as well: there is SOFT Science as well as HARD Science.

HARD Science deals with “Natural” ie Nature, while Soft Science deals "INTANGIBLE" with, say repeatable experiment such as ECONOMICS, if you spent 15$ and you sell 12$, it surely (Scientifically or arithmetically proven” one will lose money :)

My personal opinion: study of "Milk to Meat" is a study of Law, of what is right and wrong, and it is not Science. More so: Grace, Mercy and Forgiveness is beyond Science :)
What may be considered meat is anything that requires more than a simple reading to come to a useful understanding.

I may have turned this thread in the direction of the sciences when I expressed my approach to a possible dilema concerning attending a church where the teaching. regarding sciences is not in line with my views regarding sciences. My approach, by the way is to note that science, while important to me is not as important as salvation.

My original thought was that what is considered meat is different for different Christians, and I was expecting to hear what others considered meat.

When threads start to wander I am often blessed and challenged, and note that this often represent things individuals find important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aha

rtm3039

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Senior Moderator
Feb 5, 2019
961
685
93
Miami, FL
What may be considered meat is anything that requires more than a simple reading to come to a useful understanding.

I may have turned this thread in the direction of the sciences when I expressed my approach to a possible dilema concerning attending a church where the teaching. regarding sciences is not in line with my views regarding sciences. My approach, by the way is to note that science, while important to me is not as important as salvation.

My original thought was that what is considered meat is different for different Christians, and I was expecting to hear what others considered meat.

When threads start to wander I am often blessed and challenged, and note that this often represent things individuals find important.
So basically, you are the guilty party? :)

Personally, my faith is my faith. I am open to any type of discussion, as long as it serves for a better understanding of what I believe, what others believe, and why they believe it. At the end of the day, it really just comes down to faith. Stated otherwise, “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” Hebrews 11:1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Major
Dec 19, 2014
5,696
2,431
113
New Zealand
www.literatelibrarian.com
I dont really think of science as more meat and faith as milk. Not sure how the topic went to that?!

I think faith goes from milk to meat, as in it gets more chewier. And sometimes life gets tougher. Just as when one gets older you skin goes from being baby soft to a bit leathery.

He gave examples like first you get baptised, you understand the gospel, you lay on hands...using your gifts to minister to others and teach.

Just look in Hebrews 5:12-6:9

If you still need someone to teach you then you arent ready to teach yet. I dont know how many spiritual years you need to have before you get to be a teacher but I might say if youve been born again for more than 3 years and STILL learning you need to seriously look at what youve been learning...have you grasped the gospel? I was surprised to hear some people in churches didnt even understand the resurrection. Some people think they actually get reincarnated once they died and it didnt actually matter if they were baptised or not. Maybe they thought over millions of years they would somehow evolve.... I dont know!!! There are some weird theories out there about the 'afterlife' and the 'beforelife'
 
Dec 19, 2014
5,696
2,431
113
New Zealand
www.literatelibrarian.com
Greetings Lanolin,

Maybe it's a cultural thing, but we here tend to call a building a building, regardless of what it's intended purpose is. Even if we know the purpose, we still call it a building: The Bank of America building, etc. Besides that, my comment was more along the lines of a joke. Kind of like why do they say a man is "getting dressed," when he really is not putting on a "dress."

rtm3039
Oh ok you mean something with a roof over it.
I would just call it the bank of america. Save on words.

I never say to people I'll meet you at the church building or the library building or the school building. I would just say meet you at the church, or the library, or the school. Must be one of those americanisms.
 
Dec 19, 2014
5,696
2,431
113
New Zealand
www.literatelibrarian.com
On teaching.

Typically when you think of a teacher you might think of someone in a classroom leading a bunch of students at school, but teaching happens outside of the classroom and often one one one encounters (like tutoring or mentoring) basically if you are showing someone else how to live a life of faith by doing so yourself so they can follow your example you are teaching.

Another way you can teach is to write instructions, or a book or guide. Or do you tube videos. There are many ways to teach, and Jesus certainly didnt teach with a power point or blackboard he was very interactive and told stories or parables
 

rtm3039

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Senior Moderator
Feb 5, 2019
961
685
93
Miami, FL
Oh ok you mean something with a roof over it.
I would just call it the bank of america. Save on words.

I never say to people I'll meet you at the church building or the library building or the school building. I would just say meet you at the church, or the library, or the school. Must be one of those americanisms.
Might be an Englisism. You now, take a left after that building. I live in the third building on the right. Etc.
 
Feb 10, 2015
844
997
93
Maryland
I dont really think of science as more meat and faith as milk. Not sure how the topic went to that?!
All milk consists of meat that has been selected and stripped of information that however important in other cases, is extraneous to the matter being expounded upon by the Spirit.

Consider the verse with which I started this thread as a prime example of milk:

John 3:16 (NASB)
16For God so loved the world, that He gave His  only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Do you not think that this drink of nourishing milk is composed of meatier things?

In order to truly understand this one my consider God’s existence, that He is a person, who His Son is, what whosoever means here, what believes means here who is referred to by Him the meaning of shall (as opposed to may or might), what kind of perish is being talked about, the meaning of eternal, and what is the nature of that life.

Along the way, one may digress into studying the Law, considering sin, and what redemption means,

This milk is comprised of a lot of meat.

For myself, I have always found the ways that God’s creation, which is the subject of the sciences, reveals Him inspires me with awe and reverence. There is a lot of meat there to digest, along with some of gristle (hard to chew, not yielding nourishment commensurate with the effort). I expect that much of this is awaiting my maturity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aha and rtm3039
Dec 19, 2014
5,696
2,431
113
New Zealand
www.literatelibrarian.com
All milk consists of meat that has been selected and stripped of information that however important in other cases, is extraneous to the matter being expounded upon by the Spirit.

Consider the verse with which I started this thread as a prime example of milk:

John 3:16 (NASB)
16For God so loved the world, that He gave His  only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Do you not think that this drink of nourishing milk is composed of meatier things?

In order to truly understand this one my consider God’s existence, that He is a person, who His Son is, what whosoever means here, what believes means here who is referred to by Him the meaning of shall (as opposed to may or might), what kind of perish is being talked about, the meaning of eternal, and what is the nature of that life.

Along the way, one may digress into studying the Law, considering sin, and what redemption means,

This milk is comprised of a lot of meat.

For myself, I have always found the ways that God’s creation, which is the subject of the sciences, reveals Him inspires me with awe and reverence. There is a lot of meat there to digest, along with some of gristle (hard to chew, not yielding nourishment commensurate with the effort). I expect that much of this is awaiting my maturity.
I think im the opposite and take amore holistic view rather than a reductionist view the scientist would take. Id read the whole chapter this verse is in to understand it better and put in context, rather than squirrel down on each word, syllable and letter.

John 3:16 is milk for me. Its a verse we most give children to memorise. Its like the gospel in a nutshell.But then read the surrounding verses. Theres a bit more to it.
 
Feb 10, 2015
844
997
93
Maryland
I think im the opposite and take amore holistic view rather than a reductionist view the scientist would take. Id read the whole chapter this verse is in to understand it better and put in context, rather than squirrel down on each word, syllable and letter.

John 3:16 is milk for me. Its a verse we most give children to memorise. Its like the gospel in a nutshell.But then read the surrounding verses. Theres a bit more to it.
Of course! Reading surrounding material helps immeasurably in understanding.

And you are right about the limitations of the reductionist viewpoints of scientists. They fail even in synthesizing a consistent whole. In their realm os expertise. But fot me, the sciences taught me quite a lot about God prior to my acceptance of the person of Christ. For me now, my first response to changing understanding of Gos's universe is to meditate on what God may be revealing, kbowing that man"s understanding of general revelation is limited, provisional and subject to change.
 
Dec 19, 2014
5,696
2,431
113
New Zealand
www.literatelibrarian.com
At school the inquiry topic this term is science based on matter. Some of the teachers have interpreted this to research how things change eg from liquid to solid...a bit like this milk to meat progression.

One teacher says shes going to teach her chikdren how to make butter chicken.

Well milk does turn into cream and butter and then cheese...so observing that process is what scientists do I suppose. They just break it down into component parts. My view would be rather than wonder about all what goes on or the process...is how does it Taste? Lol

Milk is such a funny thing you can get all kinds these days. Skim, homogenised, full cream, , extra calcium..soy, almond, coconut...

Then theres so many byprodcuts like yoghurt, paneer, ghee, and so many different types of cheeses....