Dietary Laws

[farouk]

The SDA believes that Jesus is God, that he is the second person of the trinity.
For this reason, they are not considered a cult.
All cults ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

With cults there are those that are the real McCoy. Then there are those that are not technically the real McCoy, but which in various ways would be described as cultish, rather than strictly a real McCoy cult.

 

[By Grace]

The SDA believes that Jesus is God, that he is the second person of the trinity.
For this reason, they are not considered a cult.
All cults ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

They also believe the archangel Michael is Jesus. Hence they deny the deity of Jesus Christ, hence they are a cult. I could mention other things about the SDAs, but I refrain from the derail. But this thread is NOT about the SDA church; it is about "dietary laws", so let's continue with the topic.

What I posted was NOT supposed to be a drive-by on the SDA church. Instead, it was supposed to be an observation on the fact that EGWhite was not quoted in a post devoted to "dietary laws". That is because to my knowledge, the SDA church is the only church that preaches "salvation by health"

 

[rstrats]

While I'm waiting to hear from someone who thinks that the dietary regulations are still in force, I have a question for those who think that they aren't still in force. When do you think unclean animals were made clean?

 

[John 8:32]

I was certain that this issue would come up because i believe that there are some SDA leanings on this site. For those not knowing, the SDA church is a "salvation through health" church, and I was sort of amused that no one poster quoted her works to justify not eating certain meats. To be fair, it is my position that the SDA is a cult due to their disproved "message of health", their extra Biblical doctrines such as Investigative Judgment which essentially says that no one was saved prior to 1844, "soul sleep" and that the words of Ellen White are "a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction." (from Fundamental Belief 18)

Interesting. I'll bet you believe in the greatest SDA myth of all. Jesus is desparately trying to save everyone right now and the Devil is desparately trying to send them to hell. This is the "Great Controversy" of E. G. White and is a completely false doctrine along with many other SDA doctrines that are false.

 

[Ryan]

While I'm waiting to hear from someone who thinks that the dietary regulations are still in force, I have a question for those who think that they aren't still in force. When do you think unclean animals were made clean?

When you say regulations, I use God's instructions to us. Yes I firmly believe the dietary commandments are very much for every believer today. This is new to me over the last year, and I cannot tell you over the last year the countless opportunities to "witness" to family, friends and co-workers just as a question to why our family has gone kosher. Here is a rundown of just this past Christmas when I was questioned by 2 older uncle's in laws.

Them: So what's this whole thing about going kosher and they cited a couple of rabbinical laws they have heard.
Me: I explained the difference between some of the difference between the rabbinical laws versus the Biblical dietary laws.
Them: Asking why God would tell people not to eat pork.
Me: Some say it's a health thing, others say it's due to the roles of kosher and non kosher animals, some point to evidence of the "circle of willis" as slaughtering a kosher animal is far more humane. In the end for me though, it is a commandment from The Lord of High and I want to do what he has instructed me to do.
Them: So if you eat pork chops you are going to hell?
Me: do you love your kids?
Them: Yes.
Me: growing up did they sometimes do things you didn't approve of or told them not to do?
Them: Of course we still loved them, even though they didn't always listen.
Me: And that is God's love for us, even though we do things he doesn't approve of, he still loves us as his children and isn't going to love me any less, pork chop or no pork chop.

So this began a discussion about God and planting seeds when the opportunity may not have been there before.

Rstrats, I am a believer in the dietary laws, is there anything specific you want to know?

 

[Free]

The SDA church is not the topic of this thread.

 

[Free]

While I'm waiting to hear from someone who thinks that the dietary regulations are still in force, I have a question for those who think that they aren't still in force. When do you think unclean animals were made clean?

There isn't a specific point in time but as I have shown, the first instance we see is when Jesus implies they are clean. God then tells Peter that all animals are clean and Paul says all animals are clean.

Mar 7:14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand:
Mar 7:15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him."
Mar 7:16 [If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.]
Mar 7:17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable.
Mar 7:18 And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,
Mar 7:19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
Mar 7:20 And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,
Mar 7:22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person." (ESV)

Act 11:5 "I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, something like a great sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to me.
Act 11:6 Looking at it closely, I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air.
Act 11:7 And I heard a voice saying to me, 'Rise, Peter; kill and eat.'
Act 11:8 But I said, 'By no means, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'
Act 11:9 But the voice answered a second time from heaven, 'What God has made clean, do not call common.'
Act 11:10 This happened three times, and all was drawn up again into heaven. (ESV)

Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.
Rom 14:15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.
Rom 14:16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil.
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Rom 14:18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
Rom 14:19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
Rom 14:20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. (ESV)

It really cannot be any clearer. To say that Christians are still under the dietary restrictions of the Law is to put us back under the Law, removed from grace, and is therefore a different gospel.

 

[eddif]

While I'm waiting to hear from someone whoj thinks that the dietary regulations are still in force, I have a question for those who think that they aren't still in force. When do you think unclean animals were made clean?

We all seem to think differently. I must be the one who has a box that no-one else sees (two many compartments to be considered a single box ?). In my feeble mind I have answered this question before.

I do see the dietary regulations still in force. Slow Down, Stop! It is just I see the spiritual reality of what the dietary laws mean: We should have a clean mental and spiritual diet, and the physical food diet is so decreased as to be on a real low level. One example I used is: we should meditate on the word, and this is equal to chewing the cud (look for a teacher that digests the Word, and presents to you the pure truth digested out of the roughage of the law).

When were they made clean? Lot toughter to pin down. I think, IMHO, it seems to say, etc (all those qualifications), that sin in the garden caused the unclean to appear [Adam's change that caused his removal from the garden; the serpents change to belly crawling (Mississippi description); briars appear; etc changed original creation (how much I do not know) ] Restoration to forgiveness and permanent good standing took Jesus's suffering, stripes, death, resurrection, etc to get a permanent solution. The temporary help of the law was good and the things learned from the law is good (if you look at the true meanings of the law). If you look at the physical law as permanent ( I understand everlasting, but the spiritual lesson of the physical is everlasting; and the physical aspect is for a season). Each year the offering were repeated, but Jesus once for all offering is forever, Decleration of law was a schoolmaster till Christ was revealed. Christ is now revealed and is our righteousness.

It is finished, on the cross, is probably the completion of all things we need.

I am comfortable with a person who believes in Jesus and struggles with the law. God worked with Peter as he struggled with the law. I will get no points for an argument with anyone. This all is just a description of how God loves the Jew and Gentile. I try not to force myself on anyone. I am forcefull on what I believe, but it is before God that we all stand. Is our name written in the Lamb's Book of Life? At judgement time our works may be burned up, but if our name is still in the Lambs book of life, eternity evidently awaits.

Of course I am just a jerk from Mississippi, and what could I possibly know.

eddif

 

[rstrats]

Ryan,

re: "Rstrats, I am a believer in the dietary laws, is there anything specific you want to know?"


I say in the OP and post #5 what it is that I am interested in hearing about.

 

[By Grace]

There isn't a specific point in time but as I have shown, the first instance we see is when Jesus implies they are clean. God then tells Peter that all animals are clean and Paul says all animals are clean.

<SNIP>

It really cannot be any clearer. To say that Christians are still under the dietary restrictions of the Law is to put us back under the Law, removed from grace, and is therefore a different gospel.

AMEN!
In your last sentence, you allude to the Galatians heresy where if one goes back to the law, he removes himself from grace, and has placed himslf under a "gospel" of an entirely different sort, which is not a salvation by grace, but a condemnation due to the inability of anyone to keep the law. And it is on that point where the SDA church comes into the discussion, especially on the dietary laws.

The heresy of the Galatians was that they believed that the door to Christianity was Judiasm. As a result of that false premise, they wanted to first practice Judaism, do they reverted to things Jewish, and that included among other things dietary laws, and adult circumcision. As a result of them selectively keeping some of the laws of the Jews, they became prideful and broke into factions, bragging, "I follow Paul! or "I follow Apollus" . That sort of divisiondid not bring about peace and unity among the brethern, and Paul hammered the Judiasers for wanting to revert to law rather than grace.

So while you and I agree in the Scriptural basis for ignoring the dietary laws of Judiasm, I am taking the objection to that observance one step further, hence my reference to the SDA cult. Uniformly, the SDA people pride themselves in their partial keeping of the law, and in the process, are quick to condemn others for not slavishly doing as they do. Such practices are antithetical one of the stated aims of this board. "come together in fellowship for encouragement, inspiration, and strength to help build each other up " Therefore, the purpose of my mentioning the SDA cult was not to be divisive, but rather have others be aware of the implications of attempting to inflict non-essential dietary laws on another Christian

 

[rstrats]

Free,

re: " There isn't a specific point in time ..."


There would HAVE to be. They couldn't be unclean AND clean at the same time - If there was ever a change, there would have to have been a specific moment when the change would have had to take place.

 

[By Grace]

While I'm waiting to hear from someone who thinks that the dietary regulations are still in force, I have a question for those who think that they aren't still in force. When do you think unclean animals were made clean?

Without any hint of snarkiness, here is the EXACT place:

Acts 10: 11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

​

For your question, the most important verse is verse 12: 12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

1. "all manner" neans just that. There was no sort of discrimination any more.
2. "all manner of four footed beasts" does not exclude any sort of beast. Therefore pork is considered clean, now.
3. "creeping things" includes snakes, salamanders and all sorts of reptiles
4. 'foul of the air" includes buzzards and crows (ugh!) as un-tasty as they might be

I hope that I have answered your question, " When do you think unclean animals were made clean? " in a satisfactory and uplifting manner.

 

[John 8:32]

There isn't a specific point in time but as I have shown, the first instance we see is when Jesus implies they are clean. God then tells Peter that all animals are clean and Paul says all animals are clean.

Mar 7:14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand:
Mar 7:15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him."
Mar 7:16 [If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.]
Mar 7:17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable.
Mar 7:18 And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,
Mar 7:19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
Mar 7:20 And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,
Mar 7:22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person." (ESV)

Act 11:5 "I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, something like a great sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to me.
Act 11:6 Looking at it closely, I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air.
Act 11:7 And I heard a voice saying to me, 'Rise, Peter; kill and eat.'
Act 11:8 But I said, 'By no means, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'
Act 11:9 But the voice answered a second time from heaven, 'What God has made clean, do not call common.'
Act 11:10 This happened three times, and all was drawn up again into heaven. (ESV)

Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.
Rom 14:15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.
Rom 14:16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil.
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Rom 14:18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
Rom 14:19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
Rom 14:20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. (ESV)

It really cannot be any clearer. To say that Christians are still under the dietary restrictions of the Law is to put us back under the Law, removed from grace, and is therefore a different gospel.

What is the context of Mark 7?

Mar 7:1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
Mar 7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
Mar 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
Mar 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

The subject here is that the Pharisees were condemning the disciples for not following their TRADITIONS, i.e. ceremonial washings. It is very important to get the context. If Christ had given this instruction, why did Peter say in Acts 10 that he had never eaten any unclean meat? Because he had not. The teaching Christ gave was about the traditions of the pharisees...

Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Now as far as Acts 11, are all men clean? How about Joseph Kony? Is he clean in God's site? Maybe John Wayne Gacy? No? No. What is being shown here in Acts 10 is not that all things are clean, but that the gentiles can be made clean. The Jews believed that gentiles were unfit for salvation. Notice the three times? How many men visited...

Act 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

Why didn't Peter run downstairs and order up lobster and shrimp with clams on the half shell?

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Act 10:29 Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?
Act 10:30 And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,
Act 10:31 And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.
Act 10:32 Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.
Act 10:33 Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.
Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Act 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Notice there is not one word about food or dietary habits? The subject was the gentiles being called to salvation.

Finally, good ole Rom 14...

Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Notice what is associated with the day? Eating or not eating (fasting)...

Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.


The real crux of Rom 14 is here...

Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Rom 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

 

[Free]

Free,

re: " There isn't a specific point in time ..."


There would HAVE to be. They couldn't be unclean AND clean at the same time - If there was ever a change, there would have to have been a specific moment when the change would have had to take place.

I should have been more clear. My point was that we cannot say at what specific time. If anything it would be at the death of Jesus when the curtain was torn, although he had already declared all food clean.

 

[Free]

And it is on that point where the SDA church comes into the discussion, especially on the dietary laws.


So while you and I agree in the Scriptural basis for ignoring the dietary laws of Judiasm, I am taking the objection to that observance one step further, hence my reference to the SDA cult. Uniformly, the SDA people pride themselves in their partial keeping of the law, and in the process, are quick to condemn others for not slavishly doing as they do. Such practices are antithetical one of the stated aims of this board. "come together in fellowship for encouragement, inspiration, and strength to help build each other up " Therefore, the purpose of my mentioning the SDA cult was not to be divisive, but rather have others be aware of the implications of attempting to inflict non-essential dietary laws on another Christian

My point is that the SDA are not the topic of this discussion and are therefore not to be discussed here.

 

[Ryan]

What is the context of Mark 7?

Mar 7:1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
Mar 7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
Mar 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
Mar 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

The subject here is that the Pharisees were condemning the disciples for not following their TRADITIONS, i.e. ceremonial washings. It is very important to get the context. If Christ had given this instruction, why did Peter say in Acts 10 that he had never eaten any unclean meat? Because he had not. The teaching Christ gave was about the traditions of the pharisees...

Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Now as far as Acts 11, are all men clean? How about Joseph Kony? Is he clean in God's site? Maybe John Wayne Gacy? No? No. What is being shown here in Acts 10 is not that all things are clean, but that the gentiles can be made clean. The Jews believed that gentiles were unfit for salvation. Notice the three times? How many men visited...

Act 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

Why didn't Peter run downstairs and order up lobster and shrimp with clams on the half shell?

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Act 10:29 Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?
Act 10:30 And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,
Act 10:31 And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.
Act 10:32 Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.
Act 10:33 Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.
Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Act 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Notice there is not one word about food or dietary habits? The subject was the gentiles being called to salvation.

Finally, good ole Rom 14...

Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Notice what is associated with the day? Eating or not eating (fasting)...

Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.


The real crux of Rom 14 is here...

Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Rom 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

Good points. One thing Free about the "thus declared all foods clean" was put in there by the translators and is not in any of the early manuscripts. Thus, another addition by the enemy to change God's Word.

1 Corinthians 11:25 "25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

You can also add this verse then to the dietary laws as being done away with. You can clearly argue here then, as others have argued, this is now giving the green light to eating other humans. Hmmm..., faulty argument here I think, but this is the same reasoning that has been shown here to prove those verses are about diets, and not some deeper and profound message. Now think in your head the disgusting thought of eating Aunt Rose. This was the same disturbing feelings Peter had of eating pork. It wasn't even a thought to him it was OK and acceptable to The Lord. And as John 8:32 pointed out, Peter later clarified it had nothing to do with diet.

Rstrats, the bible doesn't give an answer as to why Peter never knew that it was kosher to keep company with Gentiles, especially one who walked with Jesus. But, how many of us still learn something new from the bible as time goes on? I would go with the first explanation on page 1, and keep my own faulty assumptions to myself.

 

[Free]

What is the context of Mark 7?

Mar 7:1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
Mar 7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
Mar 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
Mar 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

The subject here is that the Pharisees were condemning the disciples for not following their TRADITIONS, i.e. ceremonial washings. It is very important to get the context. If Christ had given this instruction, why did Peter say in Acts 10 that he had never eaten any unclean meat? Because he had not. The teaching Christ gave was about the traditions of the pharisees...

Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

While that was what started the response by Jesus, it would be ignoring Jesus's words to say that he was only addressing their traditions and hypocrisy. Jesus's words could not be clearer:

Mar 7:15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him."
...
Mar 7:18 And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,
Mar 7:19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) (ESV)

As for Peter's response in Acts, we must remember a couple of things: 1) when these books and letters were written, and 2) that the disciples were always "hard of hearing," not fully understanding what Jesus was saying.

The books were mainly written after the events in them. So we likely have Peter, who was close to Mark, telling him of the significance of Jesus's words, having already experienced the vision of the sheet of animals.

There simply is no way that this can be explained away. Worth noting here are Jesus's teachings on adultery and such:

Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
....
Mat 5:31 "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.'
Mat 5:32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Mat 5:33 "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.'
Mat 5:34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,
Mat 5:35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
Mat 5:36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.
Mat 5:37 Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.
Mat 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
Mat 5:39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat 5:40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
Mat 5:41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
Mat 5:42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
Mat 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
Mat 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Mat 5:45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. (ESV)

Notice the striking similarity. Jesus takes their traditions and even teachings of the Law, and shows what they really mean, where the problems really lie. Particularly in verses 27 and 28 he shows, just as he does in Mark 7, that the real problem is with the heart.

Now as far as Acts 11, are all men clean? How about Joseph Kony? Is he clean in God's site? Maybe John Wayne Gacy? No? No.

This has nothing to do with what is being shown in Acts 10. It's a ceremonial issue, not a moral one.

What is being shown here in Acts 10 is not that all things are clean, but that the gentiles can be made clean. The Jews believed that gentiles were unfit for salvation. Notice the three times? How many men visited...

Act 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

It isn't that "the gentiles can be made clean," so as to make the issue a moral one, but it's that there was now no distinction between Jew and Gentile. This is seen in Paul's writings:

Col 3:11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all. (ESV)

Why didn't Peter run downstairs and order up lobster and shrimp with clams on the half shell?

And why should he have even if he did understand the significance? Habits of the mind and heart are extremely difficult to break.

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Act 10:29 Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?
Act 10:30 And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,
Act 10:31 And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.
Act 10:32 Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.
Act 10:33 Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.
Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Act 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Notice there is not one word about food or dietary habits? The subject was the gentiles being called to salvation.

And yet what is the point of an analogy if it isn't true? If the analogy isn't true, then there is no purpose for it. Rather one draws a parallel between that which is already true to show the truth of something else.

So while the primary purpose here was to show Peter that the Gentiles were no longer considered ceremonially unclean and were worthy of salvation, it also reinforced what Jesus had already said regarding food. There need not be mention here of "food or dietary habits".

Finally, good ole Rom 14...

Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Notice what is associated with the day? Eating or not eating (fasting)...

Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.


The real crux of Rom 14 is here...

Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Rom 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

I'm not sure what your point is here as it seems to that this doesn't address the text which I had bolded:

Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.
....
Rom 14:20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. (ESV)

And that is in the context of food.

As I have pointed out previously, this is all fully supported by Paul's numerous statements that we are no longer under the Law. As has been stated, to say that Christians are still under the dietary restrictions of the Law is to put us back under the Law, removed from grace, and is therefore a different gospel.

 

[Free]

Good points. One thing Free about the "thus declared all foods clean" was put in there by the translators and is not in any of the early manuscripts. Thus, another addition by the enemy to change God's Word.

Not that it would change the meaning of what Jesus says, but you need to provide proof of such an assertion.

1 Corinthians 11:25 "25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.â€

You can also add this verse then to the dietary laws as being done away with. You can clearly argue here then, as others have argued, this is now giving the green light to eating other humans. Hmmm..., faulty argument here I think, but this is the same reasoning that has been shown here to prove those verses are about diets, and not some deeper and profound message. Now think in your head the disgusting thought of eating Aunt Rose.

It is not at all the same reasoning. The fact is that many verses and passages in Scripture have more than one meaning, at different levels.

This was the same disturbing feelings Peter had of eating pork. It wasn't even a thought to him it was OK and acceptable to The Lord.

I'm curious: how is it that you know what Peter was feeling and thinking?

And as John 8:32 pointed out, Peter later clarified it had nothing to do with diet.

That what had nothing to with diet? His vision? I believe I have sufficiently shown that it actually does have something to do with diet.

 

[By Grace]

Originally Posted by Ryan
Good points. One thing Free about the "thus declared all foods clean" was put in there by the translators and is not in any of the early manuscripts. Thus, another addition by the enemy to change God's Word.

Sorry, but the Critical Apparatus has rated the present active participle, singular, nominative καθαρίζων from which we get the English word, "catharsis" as an "A" degree of reliability. That means that the more recently discovered documents, and which are the earlier documents, being closer to the originals is correctly placed in the verse. The Critical Apparatus is a systematic examination of ALL the known variants in ALL of the different documents. The best and the most reliable indicate that καθαρίζων is what Mark wrote and meant.

Therefore, I respectfully ask from what translation or paraphrase did you get that data?

Originally Posted by Ryan

1 Corinthians 11:25 "25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

You can also add this verse then to the dietary laws as being done away with. You can clearly argue here then, as others have argued, this is now giving the green light to eating other humans. Hmmm..., faulty argument here I think, but this is the same reasoning that has been shown here to prove those verses are about diets, and not some deeper and profound message. Now think in your head the disgusting thought of eating Aunt Rose. This was the same disturbing feelings Peter had of eating pork. It wasn't even a thought to him it was OK and acceptable to The Lord. And as John 8:32 pointed out, Peter later clarified it had nothing to do with diet.

This scripture verse is yanked from its context. My experience tells me that any verse ripped from its context always results in a pretext, so I am wondering what the observance of the Lord's supper--a sacrament (meaning commanded by Jesus Christ) has to do with eating koosher?

Cannibalism??? That is as audacious as it is preposterous. However, it serves as an indicator of the degree of revulsion that Peter initially felt. But to bring in John 8:32 does not provide any support for your thesis; it is extraneous, and of course out of context.

Rstrats, the bible doesn't give an answer as to why Peter never knew that it was kosher to keep company with Gentiles, especially one who walked with Jesus.

The purpose of Peter's vision was to ELIMINATE the concept of Kosher food, not keep it up. Why would the sheet contain reptiles, crows, pigs and dogs and have the instructions, "KILL and EAT" attached? That was done three times, so you need to find a reason within Scripture why God changed his mind, or wlse why God changed his mind without notifying us of that fact.

So essentially, you have simply expressed your opinion, but have not expressed any Bible-based reason for it.

You make a bold assertion here, but you fail to back it up.

Does anyone who believes that the dietary regulations are still in effect have any thoughts on why Peter didn’t know about the “keeping company” part of Acts 10?

From where does that come? I do not see it in any of the standard commentaries, or reference books I have.

 

[Ryan]

Lev 11:44 For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground. (ESV)

And? Peter is most likely using the quote out of context, since it is clear that he is not discussing foods. It is, after all, a statement that stands on it's own.

1Peter 1:15-16 but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; 16 because it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.â€

is quoting:

Leviticus 11:44-45 "For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things that swarm on the earth For I am the LORD who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy."

and

Leviticus 19:2 "Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘ You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy"

and

Leviticus 20:7-8 "You shall consecrate yourselves therefore and be holy, for I am the Lord your God. 8 You shall keep My statutes and practice them; I am the Lord who sanctifies you."

and

Leviticus 21:8 "You shall consecrate him, therefore, for he offers the food of your God; he shall be holy to you; for I the LORD, who sanctifies you, am holy"

In which 4 verses quoted above is Peter speaking of then? The instructions in Leviticus was more then just dietary commandments, it was about setting one apart from all the other people, nations and being holy unto the Lord. In all of ones behaviour.

Peter was speaking to the Diaspora Jews in this letter as his greetings began with:

1 Peter 1:1-2 "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure."

He was speaking to those who already had the teachings found in the Torah/Law and would have had Torah scrolls with them when they were dispersed. Further Peter goes on to say:

1 Peter 1:14-16 "As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, 15 but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; 16 because it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.â€

Peter is referencing these Diaspora Jews back to the teachings in the Torah as a model for setting themselves apart as they were most certainly assimilated into the pagan customs and traditions of where they were dispersed to. Kosher food is referenced, but also teachings against mediums, adultery, sexual immorality, etc. If there was ever time for Peter to be very clear, he could have said to follow all these instructions with the exception of the foods, but he didn't.