• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

Dietary Laws

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.”
<SNIP>

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.

Being holy has NOTHING to do with eating meat. therefore your "supports" are unsupportable when it comes ddiet.

Look what Paull said at the Jerusalem council:
Acts15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood
His pronunciation to the Gentiles prohibited no sort of meat, be it from a reptile, or a pig or a dog. Since you are attempting to make the point that kosher eating is for the gentoles, then you must provede a single vese that says so. What you have done is to string a list of unrelated cherry-picked verses about being holy, and then try to superimpose them onto another unrelated subject.

Then in Antioch, there was a spat between Peter and Paul. Here is what Paul said about it:
Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
The key is in red. Peter WAS living as a gentile among the gentiles. That means by definition that he did not eat kosher. He ate the "unclean" animals that nourished the gentiles,and gentile believers.

Paul boldly scolds Peter for being two faced because when he was with the Jews, he reverted back to being a Jew.

At no time did Paul insist that Peter (or anyone else) eat kosher. For you or anyone else wanting to inflict that upon Christians, it is necessary for you to unequivocally demonstrate that God's desire is for gentiles to be kosher.

If that is not impossible, you should change your beliefs to conform with the Bible, not vice-versa, and have the Bible conform to your beliefs.
 
Not that it would change the meaning of what Jesus says, but you need to provide proof of such an assertion.
The following translations have the "(thus declared all foods clean)" or a derivative of it:
ASV, AMP, CEB, CJB, CEV, ERV, ESVUK, GW, GNT, HCSB, PHILLIPS, KNOX, MSG, MOUNCE, NASB, NCV, NET, NIRV, NIV, NIVUK, NLV, NLT, NRSV, NRSVA, NRSVCE, RSV, RSVCE, TNIV. Oh dear, this doesn't look to good for my argument.

These are the translations that don't have the "(thus declared all foods clean)"
KJ21, DARBY, DRA, KJV, NKJV, OJB, WE.

I use the Greek and Hebrew Interlinear Bible from scripture4all and here is a link to Mark 7 http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mar7.pdf

As well a link to Mark 7:19 with the concordance numbers with ASV version: http://studybible.info/ASV_Strongs/Mark 7:19
KJV with the Strongs references: http://studybible.info/ASV_Strongs/Mark 7:19

So there is one version from the ASV that declares all food clean, and the KJV that says "purging all meats". So there are slight translation differences, but for the sake of argument I am not gonna belabor the point whether (all foods are declared clean) as the Interlinear versions I use, do not have that is there.

What I will question though is the usage of the words "foods" or "meat" as used in some versions. I think we can agree the concordance reference is G#1033 and here are 2 links for meaning of that word: http://studybible.info/strongs/G1033 and http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1033.html

It has been defined as one being ceremonially allowed or forbidden by the Jewish Law. As I already pointed out in earlier posts, swine or non kosher food was not even considered a food item or a thought as being be able to be consumed. Food of how we define food in our western thought was not the same thought of what food was as a Jew living in Israel living in kosher paradise.

As Jesus and the disciples were sitting down to eat a meal in Mark 7 was most definitely conforming to the standards of the biblical dietary laws. The issue was about handwashing as evidenced in Mark 7:5 "The Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?†such as doing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozOPl8A3Qxk

The Pharisees were incorrectly distinguishing what was clean and unclean by their own man made commandments, and telling the Jews they have sinned if they didn't follow instructions such as the handwashing as that video showed. It was never the Law that the Lord spoke to Moses that Jesus changed or spoke against, it was the man made traditions that circumvented the commandments of God and placed those ahead of God's commandments.


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.
I agree, I was just showing and providing my perspective that 1 Corinthians 11:25 had nothing to do with eating human as Acts 10 had anything to do with unclean animals being on the menu. Try and find me one reference of swine or pig being used in a positive light, and I, as being an Albertan as well, will personally deliver to you in person a kilogram of Cost-co bacon I have stored in my deepfreeze that I will never eat.

I'm curious: how is it that you know what Peter was feeling and thinking?
Acts 10:14 "But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.â€
Notice he never said any unclean food?

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.
Acts 10:28 "And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean."

Nowhere does it say or even allude to anything about his diet. It has to do with the traditions of the elders (man made, not God made). Peter is referencing his vision here and God breaking down another man made barrier, that one can call Gentiles clean and associate with them freely in and out of their home. This must be why Paul rebuked Peter in Galatians 2:11-14 for the hypocricy Peter showed for of fear of thethe Jews who still held onto the traditions of the elders (man made) of not associating freely with the Gentiles.
 
The following translations have the "(thus declared all foods clean)" or a derivative of it:
ASV, AMP, CEB, CJB, CEV, ERV, ESVUK, GW, GNT, HCSB, PHILLIPS, KNOX, MSG, MOUNCE, NASB, NCV, NET, NIRV, NIV, NIVUK, NLV, NLT, NRSV, NRSVA, NRSVCE, RSV, RSVCE, TNIV. Oh dear, this doesn't look to good for my argument.

These are the translations that don't have the "(thus declared all foods clean)"
KJ21, DARBY, DRA, KJV, NKJV, OJB, WE.
<SNIP>


quote_icon.png
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?

Evidently you did not get the point of my post, so I re post a part of it. What you are doing is using English to attempt to determine what the Greek says. That is doing things backwards, friend.

Please look at this source:
The words purging all meats (Rev., making all meats clean) are not Christ’s, but the Evangelist’s, explaining the bearing of Christ’s words; and therefore the Rev. properly renders, this he said (italics), making all meats clean. This was the interpretation of Chrysostom, who says in his homily on Matthew: “But Mark says that he said these things making all meats pure.” Canon Farrar refers to a passage cited from Gregory Thaumaturgus: “And the Saviour, who purifies all meats, says.” This rendering is significant in the light of Peter’s vision of the great sheet, and of the words, “What God hath cleansed” (ἐκαθάρισε), in which Peter probably realized for the first time the import of the Lord’s words on this occasion. Canon Farrar remarks: “It is doubtless due to the fact that St. Peter, the informant of St. Mark, in writing his Gospel, and as the sole ultimate authority for this vision in the Acts, is the source of both narratives, — that we owe the hitherto unnoticed circumstance that the two verbs, cleanse and profane (or defile), both in a peculiarly pregnant sense, are the two most prominent words in the narrative of both events” (“Life and Work of Paul,” i., 276–7).
Vincent, M. R. (1887). Word studies in the New Testament (Mk 7:19). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

John Chrysostom (c. 347–407, Greek: Ἰωάννης ὁ Χρυσόστομος), Archbishop of Constantinople, was an important Early Church Father. he was known for his eloquence in preaching and his famous Greek liturgy. His nickname was "golden mouth"

So I am wondering at the reasons for your arguing so profusely for reinstatement of the kosher rules for the gentiles? I am also wondering at your sources for the material you present. That is because your source clearly words things to support something that is not substantiated in the Bible, the ECFs or any modern scholarship.

I am also wondering if you believe that the Ecumenical Creeds are applicable today, and are a part of the sources that Christians should consider as authoritative and normal statements of Christian orthodoxy.
 
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?

See my response to Free above. I primarily use the Hebrew and Greek Interlinear Bible provided from scripture4all, but don't limit myself solely to this site or other translations.



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.
Yes, it was absolutely pulled completely out of context. I was just making the point that me using 1 Corinthians 11:25 to give permission to eating human flesh is the same as using Acts 10 as the basis for the biblical, not rabbinical, dietary laws being done away with. And when it came to John 8:32, I was quoting the poster here, not the verse, but it is a goodie verse amen to that.

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. From where does that come? I do not see it in any of the standard commentaries, or reference books I have.
I believe I have addressed this with my response to Free above that Peter's vision had nothing to do with diet. I'll provide a further in depth look at Acts 10:13-15 specifically.

Acts 10:13 "A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!â€
Kill and eat is a Hebrew concept of going up to Jerusalem of going to make "aliyah" and make a sacrifice. The Greek says "thusia kai phago" meaning go to sacrifice and eat. Make a sacrifice to the Lord and eat and partake of the sacrifice as this was protocol (depending on the sacrifice) such as in Leviticus 7:15 "Now as for the flesh of the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace offerings, it shall be eaten on the day of his offering; he shall not leave any of it over until morning" However, there was a problem and we need to understand the concept and the difference of one being unholy and holy versus unclean and clean which there is a big difference before going any further.

Unholy or common, or koinos in Greek, can also be used as ritually impure, profane, unhallowed and unable to offer to the Lord in the state that it was in. But, what was unholy could be rendered holy and permissible to be offered to the Lord. So a clean animal (such as a lamb) could be rendered as unholy or impure if it came into contact with an unclean animal such as swine as stated in Leviticus 7:21 "When anyone touches anything unclean, whether human uncleanness, or an unclean animal, or any unclean detestable thing, and eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings which belong to the Lord, that person shall be cut off from his people." Just being in direct contact with something "unclean" can render a "clean" animal "common" or "impure." The opposite of common, comes the Hebrew word "tahor" which means pure, ceremonially clean, morally and ethically clean.

Now an unclean animal such as swine, could never be made clean and be ritually pure or ceremonially clean to be offered to the Lord. No matter how "holy" we try to make it, a pig is still a pig. In Greek it is "akathartos" which is "unclean."

Acts 10:14 " But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy [common] and unclean.â€
So now knowing unholy means a clean animal that has come into contact with something unclean. Peter here has expressed there is a difference between what is common and unclean. In verse 13 "and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air" Peter said there were all "kinds" meaning there were animals that were both clean and unclean. However, the clean animals were in contact with the unclean animals. Hence, making the clean animals "common" or "unholy." If there weren't any clean animals, he would have surely said I have never eaten anything that was unclean. But he didn't. He was differentiating that the clean animals were now "common" as they were in contact with the unclean animals. Peter had never eaten a clean animal that was "unholy or common," nor an unclean animal such as a swine. Following along?

Acts 10:15 "Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.â€
This is the kicker here now. The voice clearly said what God has cleansed, no longer consider "unholy". This was repeated twice. We already know an unclean animal cannot be considered to be made clean, or be in a state or ritual purity. God specifically did not say "unclean." If he said "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy and unclean" then we wouldn't be having this conversation. He only pointed out what was "unholy" as it had the possibility of being made "tahor" or being made pure again. To state otherwise would be an impossibility as that would be God going against his Word, which I know is unbreakable and never changing. He cannot change his mind. Period.

Now this was Peter's problem. His problem was the thinking at that time that a Gentile was "unclean" and without hope of having eternal life because unclean creatures can never be clean. So to explain some of the epistles, the Jews believed erroneously that a Gentile must convert to being Jewish so they could be made "clean" and then being able to obtain eternal life. God was telling Peter the 3 Gentiles were not to be considered "unclean" but rather likened to "clean animals" which were made "unholy or common" by paganism and an unbelief in Jesus. However, belief in Jesus can make what was "unholy or common," now "holy." This is why Peter concludes that he is never to call any man no matter how defiled with paganism they are, as being "unclean." He was taught to call them as being "unholy or common" but being able to be made clean again by faith in Jesus. Acts 11:17-18 "Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?†18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.â€


Being holy has NOTHING to do with eating meat. therefore your "supports" are unsupportable when it comes ddiet.

Look what Paull said at the Jerusalem council:
Acts15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood
His pronunciation to the Gentiles prohibited no sort of meat, be it from a reptile, or a pig or a dog. Since you are attempting to make the point that kosher eating is for the gentoles, then you must provede a single vese that says so. What you have done is to string a list of unrelated cherry-picked verses about being holy, and then try to superimpose them onto another unrelated subject.
Hmmm...abstain from things strangled and from blood. But the dietary laws were done away with?
Leviticus 7:26 "You are not to eat any blood, either of bird or animal, in any of your dwellings."
Leviticus 17:12 "Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, 'No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood."
Deuteronomy 15:23 "Only you shall not eat its blood; you are to pour it out on the ground like water." - meaning strangled animals.

The key verse though is this in Acts 15:21 "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.†Nobody likes that verse because this is calling for 4 things that are to be abstained from because of what? Because the Law of Moses, or the Torah is taught every Sabbath. Meaning hey, there is a lot of stuff you need to learn as you learn your walk with Jesus. Here are 4 things to start with, and you will learn the rest as you go along as it will be taught on the Sabbath. 2 of the 4 abstention items were dietary.


Then in Antioch, there was a spat between Peter and Paul. Here is what Paul said about it:
Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
The key is in red. Peter WAS living as a gentile among the gentiles. That means by definition that he did not eat kosher. He ate the "unclean" animals that nourished the gentiles,and gentile believers.

Paul boldly scolds Peter for being two faced because when he was with the Jews, he reverted back to being a Jew.

At no time did Paul insist that Peter (or anyone else) eat kosher. For you or anyone else wanting to inflict that upon Christians, it is necessary for you to unequivocally demonstrate that God's desire is for gentiles to be kosher.

If that is not impossible, you should change your beliefs to conform with the Bible, not vice-versa, and have the Bible conform to your beliefs.
What you have done is made an assumption that Peter was living like a Gentile and eating unclean animals. Nowhere does it say that at all. "Works of the law" is what I was pointing out above as one having to make a conversion to being Jewish to merit their salvation. When I explained the "unclean" and "clean", it was equivalent as a pig making a conversion to being a lamb so it would be considered clean. There were Jews who thought Gentiles had to convert to being a Jew to have their salvation solidified. "Works of the law" has to do with the legal conversion process. Nothing with the biblical commandments from God. OT or NT.

Peter was being scolded for his hypocrisy of still abiding by what I described in Acts 10 and what his vision was really about. He was fearful of the proselytizing group, hence his resort back to the old practice of avoiding Gentiles when other Jews were around for fear it would make them unholy or common. Peer pressure is such a terrible thing.

So then what is Peter referring to then in 1 Peter 1:15-16?
 
Evidently you did not get the point of my post, so I re post a part of it. What you are doing is using English to attempt to determine what the Greek says. That is doing things backwards, friend.

Please look at this source:
The words purging all meats (Rev., making all meats clean) are not Christ’s, but the Evangelist’s, explaining the bearing of Christ’s words; and therefore the Rev. properly renders, this he said (italics), making all meats clean. This was the interpretation of Chrysostom, who says in his homily on Matthew: “But Mark says that he said these things making all meats pure.†Canon Farrar refers to a passage cited from Gregory Thaumaturgus: “And the Saviour, who purifies all meats, says.†This rendering is significant in the light of Peter’s vision of the great sheet, and of the words, “What God hath cleansed†(ἐκαθάρισε), in which Peter probably realized for the first time the import of the Lord’s words on this occasion. Canon Farrar remarks: “It is doubtless due to the fact that St. Peter, the informant of St. Mark, in writing his Gospel, and as the sole ultimate authority for this vision in the Acts, is the source of both narratives, — that we owe the hitherto unnoticed circumstance that the two verbs, cleanse and profane (or defile), both in a peculiarly pregnant sense, are the two most prominent words in the narrative of both events†(“Life and Work of Paul,†i., 276–7).
Vincent, M. R. (1887). Word studies in the New Testament (Mk 7:19). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

John Chrysostom (c. 347–407, Greek: Ἰωάννης ὁ Χρυσόστομος), Archbishop of Constantinople, was an important Early Church Father. he was known for his eloquence in preaching and his famous Greek liturgy. His nickname was "golden mouth"

So I am wondering at the reasons for your arguing so profusely for reinstatement of the kosher rules for the gentiles? I am also wondering at your sources for the material you present. That is because your source clearly words things to support something that is not substantiated in the Bible, the ECFs or any modern scholarship.

I am also wondering if you believe that the Ecumenical Creeds are applicable today, and are a part of the sources that Christians should consider as authoritative and normal statements of Christian orthodoxy.

I will go a step further and say when one is really stuck on a word to go back to the Hebrew. The OT and NT was written by Jews with Hebrew mind sets and thinking and vocabulary. I think I, and others have shown Mark 7 and Acts 10 is not about the dietary laws. We may just have to agree to disagree, and that is fine. We had a multi-denominational service on Sunday and one of the songs was and I am not gonna repeat it verbatim but the words were like this, Jew and Gentile one in Messiah, and the chorus was "In unity, in unity." Different positions on different matters is one thing, but we are all united by our relationship to Messiah amen to that.

I use different sources. Messianic Jewish, Christian (Matthew Henry) and Hebrew Roots stuff primarily. Just because one said it is not written in stone. I cross reference, and then cross cross reference to make sure what I think is accurate. I'm using a prayer book by Germaine Copeland that is helping me in my prayer life right now.

I feel the Law/Torah has a place for every believer and I cannot believe that instructions such as the dietary laws were ever excused. The scriptures just do not support it in all the readings and teachings I have come across.

I do not know enough about the ecumenical creeds other then a cursory search, so I won't give you an opinion of such.
 
Being holy has NOTHING to do with eating meat. therefore your "supports" are unsupportable when it comes ddiet.

Depends on the attitude. If your attitude is "Don't tell me what to do, I'll eat what I want", it has everything to do with eating meat.
 
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.

So, all meat is good for food? How about fugu (blowfish)? Would you like to try some of that? After all, Paul said...

1Co 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

Ground glass or arsenic? Perhaps these verses should be understood under the broader framework of what meat God has said is food or is not food...

1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

This verse was also written by Paul. What meats are sanctified by the Word of God?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hebrews 1:1
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

In the OT an ox is an ox.
In the NT an ox is more about a preacher.

In the OT diet is food
In the NT diet is more Word

First the physical then the Spiritual.

You must eat my body and drink my blood is sure more beyond the physical (in one sense).

eddif
 
Hebrews 1:1
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

In the OT an ox is an ox.
In the NT an ox is more about a preacher.

In the OT diet is food
In the NT diet is more Word

First the physical then the Spiritual.

You must eat my body and drink my blood is sure more beyond the physical (in one sense).

eddif

So let's think about the NT diet, all is clean? Or is the pure Word of God clean? Do you think maybe that perhaps the clean and unclean pointed to more than just meat? Or does it matter, any ole word will do? All roads lead to heaven? Maybe there is more to clean and unclean than what you stick in your mouth...
 
So, all meat is good for food? How about fugu (blowfish)? Would you like to try some of that? After all, Paul said...

1Co 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

...Perhaps these verses should be understood under the broader framework of what meat God has said is food or is not food...

1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

This verse was also written by Paul. What meats are sanctified by the Word of God?
Yes, all meat is good for food. This all agrees with my position so I still don't understand what you're getting at.

John 8:32 said:
Ground glass or arsenic?
And that is just silliness. This is a discussion about food.
 
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.
Again, Peter is simply stating that they need to be holy in their conduct but this in no way whatsoever means that he is referring to the Law. We cannot use this statement to say that Paul is referring to dietary restrictions. It simply doesn't work for the reasons I have given: Jesus makes it clear that all food is clean; Peter's vision makes it clear that all food is clean; Paul states many times that believers are no longer under the Law and that to teach that we are, is to teach a different gospel.
 
Again, Peter is simply stating that they need to be holy in their conduct but this in no way whatsoever means that he is referring to the Law. We cannot use this statement to say that Paul is referring to dietary restrictions. It simply doesn't work for the reasons I have given: Jesus makes it clear that all food is clean; Peter's vision makes it clear that all food is clean; Paul states many times that believers are no longer under the Law and that to teach that we are, is to teach a different gospel.
If I may respectfully ask then what passage(s) was Peter referring to, and what behaviour defined holiness if it didn't come from the Law?
 
Free said:
Ryan said:
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.
The following translations have the "(thus declared all foods clean)" or a derivative of it:
ASV, AMP, CEB, CJB, CEV, ERV, ESVUK, GW, GNT, HCSB, PHILLIPS, KNOX, MSG, MOUNCE, NASB, NCV, NET, NIRV, NIV, NIVUK, NLV, NLT, NRSV, NRSVA, NRSVCE, RSV, RSVCE, TNIV. Oh dear, this doesn't look to good for my argument.

These are the translations that don't have the "(thus declared all foods clean)"
KJ21, DARBY, DRA, KJV, NKJV, OJB, WE.

I use the Greek and Hebrew Interlinear Bible from scripture4all and here is a link to Mark 7 http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mar7.pdf

As well a link to Mark 7:19 with the concordance numbers with ASV version: http://studybible.info/ASV_Strongs/Mark 7:19
KJV with the Strongs references: http://studybible.info/ASV_Strongs/Mark 7:19

So there is one version from the ASV that declares all food clean, and the KJV that says "purging all meats". So there are slight translation differences, but for the sake of argument I am not gonna belabor the point whether (all foods are declared clean) as the Interlinear versions I use, do not have that is there.
None of this addresses my point: If you are going to claim this was an addition, especially an "addition by the enemy to change God's Word," you need to provide proof. Translations do not constitute proof. What I am looking for here is manuscript evidence.

Ryan said:
What I will question though is the usage of the words "foods" or "meat" as used in some versions. I think we can agree the concordance reference is G#1033 and here are 2 links for meaning of that word: http://studybible.info/strongs/G1033 and http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1033.html

It has been defined as one being ceremonially allowed or forbidden by the Jewish Law. As I already pointed out in earlier posts, swine or non kosher food was not even considered a food item or a thought as being be able to be consumed. Food of how we define food in our western thought was not the same thought of what food was as a Jew living in Israel living in kosher paradise.
Whether it is "foods" or "meat" doesn't really matter since "meat" is a specific subset of food. What we must note is that if Jesus was simply referring to that which is kosher or only that which would be considered food, then he is saying nothing. There is no point.

It is precisely because he is implication is those foods which are considered unclean that the point is made.

Ryan said:
As Jesus and the disciples were sitting down to eat a meal in Mark 7 was most definitely conforming to the standards of the biblical dietary laws. The issue was about handwashing as evidenced in Mark 7:5 "The Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” such as doing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozOPl8A3Qxk

The Pharisees were incorrectly distinguishing what was clean and unclean by their own man made commandments, and telling the Jews they have sinned if they didn't follow instructions such as the handwashing as that video showed. It was never the Law that the Lord spoke to Moses that Jesus changed or spoke against, it was the man made traditions that circumvented the commandments of God and placed those ahead of God's commandments.
Yes, and in so addressing the real issue, that it is a matter of the heart, Jesus states that "There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him" (Mark 7:15, ESV). Jesus addresses their tradition of hand washing by showing that all defilement is from within, not from the outside. Logically then, this would include all food and hence why Mark states that in so saying this, Jesus "declared all foods clean."

Ryan said:
I agree, I was just showing and providing my perspective that 1 Corinthians 11:25 had nothing to do with eating human as Acts 10 had anything to do with unclean animals being on the menu. Try and find me one reference of swine or pig being used in a positive light, and I, as being an Albertan as well, will personally deliver to you in person a kilogram of Cost-co bacon I have stored in my deepfreeze that I will never eat.
As for actual eating of animals in the entire Bible, how many animals are used in a positive light, that is, how many are specifically mentioned?

Regardless, if you can show me where the NT states that believers are to follow the dietary restrictions of the Law, I'll never eat bacon again. However, if we are to follow the dietary restrictions of the Law, should we not follow all of the Law? If not, on what basis do you differentiate? Where does the NT clearly state that certain parts of the Law are to be followed by believers and other parts not?

Ryan said:
Acts 10:28 "And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean."

Nowhere does it say or even allude to anything about his diet. It has to do with the traditions of the elders (man made, not God made). Peter is referencing his vision here and God breaking down another man made barrier, that one can call Gentiles clean and associate with them freely in and out of their home. This must be why Paul rebuked Peter in Galatians 2:11-14 for the hypocricy Peter showed for of fear of thethe Jews who still held onto the traditions of the elders (man made) of not associating freely with the Gentiles.
Again, as I have stated, the analogy is useless if not true. If God had not already declared all food clean, as He states He did, then the analogy does not work. It is precisely because all foods have been declared clean that the parallel to Gentiles does work.
 
If I may respectfully ask then what passage(s) was Peter referring to, and what behaviour defined holiness if it didn't come from the Law?
My point was that Peter was not necessarily referring to any passage(s) and he need not be. The NT cannot be more clear that believers are no longer under the Law, so that alone immediately rules out any idea that Peter had the dietary restrictions of the Law in mind.

What is wrong with just understanding that Peter borrowed that saying from the Law without any implication that we are to follow the dietary restrictions?
 
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by By Grace
Being holy has NOTHING to do with eating meat. therefore your "supports" are unsupportable when it comes ddiet.

Depends on the attitude. If your attitude is "Don't tell me what to do, I'll eat what I want", it has everything to do with eating meat.

Please provide the New Testament book, chapter and verse that equates being holy with not eating meat. Your answer about attitude has to do with "weak Christians" verses "strong Christians". We are NOT to stick our freedom to eat reptiles, shell fish and cats in the face of those who will not eat those things. That is an example of Christian love for one another. There is NOTHING that is in the NT that equates being holy with abstaining from meat.
 
None of this addresses my point: If you are going to claim this was an addition, especially an "addition by the enemy to change God's Word," you need to provide proof. Translations do not constitute proof. What I am looking for here is manuscript evidence..

I went in my garage looking for a manuscript you asked for, but all I found were these autographs signed by a Josephus. However, the dog chewed it up before I had a chance to take a closer look (sigh). If you can point me to a solid resource besides the Interlinear and transliterations I use, that would be greatly appreciated. Always looking to expand the resource chest.

I'm sorry but the link to the scripture4all didnt work, but I hope this link does as it has the strongs references. If anything, Mark 7:19 is about the physiological functions of our body, not anything to do with food...clean food that is.
http://studybible.info/KJV_Strongs/Mark 7:19

Maybe the wording was a bit strong to using this passage as an example of the enemy taking away, or adding to God's Word. However, wasn't this the same tactic used by the serpent in the garden to deceive Eve and Adam. Just some of the truth, but enough to twist the commandment into the serpent's doing. That is to twist and deceive. That's why I take nothing at face value, and research it to death till I am comfortable it's the truth. Don't take anything I have said here as Gospel (which you have made abundantly clear we don't share the same thoughts), but search it out before you completely close the door to it.

God bless
 
quote_icon.png
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?



See my response to Free above. I primarily use the Hebrew and Greek Interlinear Bible provided from scripture4all, but don't limit myself solely to this site or other translations.


Your contention was that "declared to be clean" was put in there by the translators and is not in any of the early manuscripts does not have any support.
I used the Greek word to demonstrate what is exactly, and there is NO variant on that word in ANY manuscript. That is what the Critical Apparatus clearly stated.
The source you used is clearly fabricating words about what the Koine Greek actually says. and BTW, I did not see that in the link you provided.

I believe I have addressed this with my response to Free above that Peter's vision had nothing to do with diet. I'll provide a further in depth look at Acts 10:13-15 specifically.

Acts 10:13 "A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!â€

How can you say that in print? You are making a statement that defies logic because you are essentially saying that "eating has nothing to do with diet".

Kill and eat is a Hebrew concept of going up to Jerusalem of going to make "aliyah" and make a sacrifice. The Greek says "thusia kai phago" meaning go to sacrifice and eat. Make a sacrifice to the Lord and eat and partake of the sacrifice as this was protocol (depending on the sacrifice) such as in Leviticus 7:15 "Now as for the flesh of the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace offerings, it shall be eaten on the day of his offering; he shall not leave any of it over until morning" However, there was a problem and we need to understand the concept and the difference of one being unholy and holy versus unclean and clean which there is a big difference before going any further.
Why are you bringing this stuff up? Did you know that the NT was written in Greek, NOT Hebrew? Did you also know that Peter was about to go out and eat with Roman Gentiles. So what is the purpose in bringing up something about a Hebrew culture?

Unholy or common, or koinos in Greek, can also be used as ritually impure, profane, unhallowed and unable to offer to the Lord in the state that it was in. But, what was unholy could be rendered holy and permissible to be offered to the Lord. So a clean animal (such as a lamb) could be rendered as unholy or impure if it came into contact with an unclean animal such as swine as stated in Leviticus 7:21 "When anyone touches anything unclean, whether human uncleanness, or an unclean animal, or any unclean detestable thing, and eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings which belong to the Lord, that person shall be cut off from his people." Just being in direct contact with something "unclean" can render a "clean" animal "common" or "impure." The opposite of common, comes the Hebrew word "tahor" which means pure, ceremonially clean, morally and ethically clean.

Please refrain from posting things which are clearly worded wrong.
Again, I ask you from where did this stuff come?

Now an unclean animal such as swine, could never be made clean and be ritually pure or ceremonially clean to be offered to the Lord. No matter how "holy" we try to make it, a pig is still a pig. In Greek it is "akathartos" which is "unclean."
This is extraneous to the issue. The issue is killing and eating animals, and NOT using them as a sacrifice to the Lord. Besides that, the sacrifice of animals was done away with by the Atonement of Jesus Christ

RATS!

I accidentally erased a lot of stuff.

Gotta go. I am tired
 
So, all meat is good for food? How about fugu (blowfish)? Would you like to try some of that? After all, Paul said...

1Co 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.


1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

This verse was also written by Paul. What meats are sanctified by the Word of God?

Yes, all meat is good for food. This all agrees with my position so I still don't understand what you're getting at.

To say that all meat is good for food is ignoring 1Tim 4:5, Paul says in this verse that only the meat sanctified by the word of God is food. Now where do we find scripture that sanctifies (sets apart) meat?

Lev 11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
.
.


Ground glass or arsenic? Perhaps these verses should be understood under the broader framework of what meat God has said is food or is not food...

And that is just silliness. This is a discussion about food.

Yes it is a discussion about food. All things are not food and the Designer and Creator of the human body knows what is food for it and what is not. When you apply verses outside of the overall framework of God's word, you come up with silly sayings like

1Co 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

means all animal flesh is food. The reason I asked about fugu is that it is unclean and can kill you. Are you telling me to apply 1Cor 10:27 to eating blowfish? I think I shall pass.
 
To say that all meat is good for food is ignoring 1Tim 4:5, Paul says in this verse that only the meat sanctified by the word of God is food. Now where do we find scripture that sanctifies (sets apart) meat?
Please do not adulterate Scripture by adding words that are NOT there.

Lev 11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
Out of Context, and from the Old Covenant, which was a school teacher.

Yes it is a discussion about food. All things are not food and the Designer and Creator of the human body knows what is food for it and what is not. When you apply verses outside of the overall framework of God's word, you come up with silly sayings like
1Co 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
means all animal flesh is food. The reason I asked about fugu is that it is unclean and can kill you. Are you telling me to apply 1Cor 10:27 to eating blowfish? I think I shall pass.

This is another example of absurdities which people use to support an untenable position. Fugu is a Japanese delicacy. So in order to establish that fugu was intended in this statement, you need to establish the existence of a Christian Japanese culture in the Mediterranean basin.

Equally absurd isthe example of eating ground glass or arsenic. Both glass and arsenic were known commodities since the days of the Pharoahs. But in order for your analogy to be evvective, it needs to be true. So you therefore need to establish any civilization that considered both arsenic and ground glass as food.

All this stuff you are throwing up seems purposed to obfuscate the fact that EVERYTHING considered food by another culture was permissible to eat for the Christians.
From where do you get this sort of nonsense? I ask because the stuff you post in defense of your opposition to what the clear words of what Scripture teaches reflects upon your belief system. If I were to hazard a guess, I would be inclined to state that your sources to support this meat issue are not in keeping with the rest of what the historically orthodox church teaches.

Seriously, and without any snarkyness involved, I ask you that if your position were indeed true, then why is there no mention of it in ANY of the Ecumenical Creeds of the Church, including the Apostles Creed? I ask that because since the beginning of the church, and in Scripture, there are creeds. They are minimal standards for Christians One early example is Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. That is a simple two step plan of salvation, which results in the promise, "You shall be saved".

From what I see in your postings here, it would be your desire to add something to this creed to make it read thus: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, and abstain from eating meats, thou shalt be saved. "

If I am wrong in this understanding of your theology, then please explain what exactly you do mean.

Thank you
 
So, all meat is good for food? How about fugu (blowfish)? Would you like to try some of that? After all, Paul said...

1Co 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

Ground glass or arsenic? Perhaps these verses should be understood under the broader framework of what meat God has said is food or is not food...

1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

This verse was also written by Paul. What meats are sanctified by the Word of God?

Please provide the New Testament book, chapter and verse that equates being holy with not eating meat. Your answer about attitude has to do with "weak Christians" verses "strong Christians". We are NOT to stick our freedom to eat reptiles, shell fish and cats in the face of those who will not eat those things. That is an example of Christian love for one another. There is NOTHING that is in the NT that equates being holy with abstaining from meat.

It has everything to do with everything. A rebellious attitude toward God in any facet of our lives is unholy whether it be thought or deed...

Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man.
Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil reasonings, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Any attitude contrary to that of humble obedience to God defiles us.
 
Back
Top