Food laws

[defender2]

How does one explain the passage below in relation to the food laws ?

Romans 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

 

[P31Woman]

What NT food laws are you talking about?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

How does one explain the passage below in relation to the food laws ?

Romans 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

The statement negates the Old Testament command to abstain from certain foods. Couldn't be much plainer.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

This verse dictates the liberality of the believer.
Many people ignore this verse and others so that they can impose rules and laws upon themselves and others.
And why people do that is another story.

 

[By Grace]

This verse dictates the liberality of the believer.
Many people ignore this verse and others so that they can impose rules and laws upon themselves and others.
And why people do that is another story.

Whenever a person brings up "food laws" or something similar, I automatically go on the defensive. The so-called "food laws" are ONLY for those who believe that salvation comes through doing things like "eating proper food" and other works.

As to why they do it? I believe that is easier to live a life of self-imposed martyrdom through abstaining from things" than it ie to simply believe that Christ atoned for your sins, once, forever, and that needs no "help" coming from anyone.

 

[About the Son of God]

I suppose you mean the dietary laws of the O.T.?

When Jesus argues with the pharisees,scribes, etc. He tends to refer back to earlier legal precedents.
Genesis, for example, is a book of law -- even if it seems to us to be a book of stories.

For this reason, Jesus sometimes uses it in legal arguments; eg: the divorce granted by Moses being improper -- was a point he won with the scribes when he says to them of divorce -- "It was not so in the beginning" (Genesis). SO, it's important to understand that there's a legal heirarchy.

The first reference I can find to man eating beasts is in Genesis 9:3, and also the first forbidding is made there -- on a single count -- do not eating the animal with blood in it. (eg: Strangled but not drained meat ).

Prior to that, we have examples of God slaying animals for the sake of man (Genesis 3:21), but no direct affirmation or denial that we may eat any and all of them.

However in Genesis 9:3, *God* (not Moses) granted us permission to eat all of them -- save one animal, man himself.

After God's permission -- at the time of Exodus -- a large number of dietary laws were added. eg: in The Law of Moses, proper, and not that of the Fathers, Abraham, Noah, etc;

These laws are something that came into being by agreement between Moses and God after the sin of the Calf; and I think that's important. Those laws were never meant for everyone, but came in on account of Israel's sin.

Now; to your question:
Paul's statement, given that Jesus was under the Mosaic Law is curious, and Paul doesn't fully explain his reasoning.

What we hear directly from Jesus is *only* on account of unclean hands:
Matthew 15:11, Matthew 15:18, and *ESPECIALLY* Matthew 15:20

But, although the Law of Moses -- brought in on account of sin -- was thrown out; None the less, the earlier law Given to Noah was not immediately abolished; but was effectively re-instated.

It's fairly easy to see this is the case (although I'm not yet probing "why") look at Acts 15:28 and 29;

The Holy spirit, authored the command.( I would encourage you to read from acts 15:5 forward for a fuller view.)

Paul's reasoning sort of flip flops on the point, saying it's fine in one place -- but not if it causes trouble to one's brother; And yet -- he gets ticked at Peter for trying to please everyone and not scandalize the Jews.... etc.

I'm glad I don't have to make those kind of political decisions....

 

[John 8:32]

I suppose you mean the dietary laws of the O.T.?

When Jesus argues with the pharisees,scribes, etc. He tends to refer back to earlier legal precedents.
Genesis, for example, is a book of law -- even if it seems to us to be a book of stories.

For this reason, Jesus sometimes uses it in legal arguments; eg: the divorce granted by Moses being improper -- was a point he won with the scribes when he says to them of divorce -- "It was not so in the beginning" (Genesis). SO, it's important to understand that there's a legal heirarchy.

The first reference I can find to man eating beasts is in Genesis 9:3, and also the first forbidding is made there -- on a single count -- do not eating the animal with blood in it. (eg: Strangled but not drained meat ).

Prior to that, we have examples of God slaying animals for the sake of man (Genesis 3:21), but no direct affirmation or denial that we may eat any and all of them.

However in Genesis 9:3, *God* (not Moses) granted us permission to eat all of them -- save one animal, man himself.

Hmmm, there is nothing stated that one cannot eat humans here.

After God's permission -- at the time of Exodus -- a large number of dietary laws were added. eg: in The Law of Moses, proper, and not that of the Fathers, Abraham, Noah, etc;

These laws are something that came into being by agreement between Moses and God after the sin of the Calf; and I think that's important. Those laws were never meant for everyone, but came in on account of Israel's sin.

Clean and unclean meats were known before the flood...

Gen 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

These were known over 1000 years before the first Israelite set foot on the earth.

Now; to your question:
Paul's statement, given that Jesus was under the Mosaic Law is curious, and Paul doesn't fully explain his reasoning.

What we hear directly from Jesus is *only* on account of unclean hands:
Matthew 15:11, Matthew 15:18, and *ESPECIALLY* Matthew 15:20

It was actually ceremonial washings instituted by the Pharisees that Christ took umbrage with...

Mat 15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Mat 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
Mat 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
Mat 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Their doctrine concerned washings that Christ called the commandments of men...

From Albert Barnes...

Mat_15:2
Transgress the tradition of the elders - The world “elders” literally means “old men.” Here it means the “ancients,” or their “ancestors.” The “tradition of the elders” meant something handed down from one to another by memory; some precept or custom not commanded in the written law, but which scribes and Pharisees held themselves bound to observe.

Adam Clarke...

The tradition of the elders - The word παραδοσις, tradition, has occupied a most distinguished place, both in the Jewish and Christian Church. Man is ever fond of mending the work of his Maker; and hence he has been led to put his finishing hand even to Divine revelation! This supplementary matter has been called παραδοσις, from παραδιδομαι, to deliver from hand to hand - to transmit; and hence the Latin term, tradition, from trado, to deliver, especially from one to another; - to hand down.

But, although the Law of Moses -- brought in on account of sin -- was thrown out; None the less, the earlier law Given to Noah was not immediately abolished; but was effectively re-instated.

Which law? Sin is not imputed where there is no law...

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

So if there was no sin prior to the law, why was the law brought in because of sin? See how silly this statement sounds? The law that was brought in because of sin is the law of sacrifices...

Jer 7:22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

Now, the Ten Commanments were given in the third month, and the Tabernacle, Priesthood and law of sacrifices were not established until the first month of the next year. Nine months after Mt. Sinai, just as Jeremiah says.

It's fairly easy to see this is the case (although I'm not yet probing "why") look at Acts 15:28 and 29;

The Holy spirit, authored the command.( I would encourage you to read from acts 15:5 forward for a fuller view.)

Paul's reasoning sort of flip flops on the point, saying it's fine in one place -- but not if it causes trouble to one's brother; And yet -- he gets ticked at Peter for trying to please everyone and not scandalize the Jews.... etc.

I'm glad I don't have to make those kind of political decisions....

 

[About the Son of God]

Hmmm, there is nothing stated that one cannot eat humans here.

So, when the context is "every moving thing ... shall be meat for you" and the follow up is "And surely your blood of your lives will I require .... whoever sheds man blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."; are you saying cannibalism is not at least being *questioned*?

Now: I'll agree to this much: it's not a *strict* prohibition against eating man's flesh;
But the context is about food and the difference between man and animal (because man is the image of God).
It's not until John 6:51 that this dietary discussion is fully brought under the microscope....

Clean and unclean meats were known before the flood...

Yes -- but there was no "LAW" found in scripture saying you couldn't eat unclean foods and spelling out penalties if you did.
It's fairly clear, to me, that Clean meats were the ones you sacrificed to God; unclean, were not thousands of years before Levitical law. BUT -- Beyond that, scripture doesn't give any solid evidence that I can find on clean and unclean meats. ( I'm purposely setting Cain's murder aside. )

Gen 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

These were known over 1000 years before the first Israelite set foot on the earth.

At least.

Mat_15:2
Transgress the tradition of the elders - The world “elders” literally means “old men.” Here it means the “ancients,” or their “ancestors.” The “tradition of the elders” meant something handed down from one to another by memory; some precept or custom not commanded in the written law, but which scribes and Pharisees held themselves bound to observe.

The way the Father's acted in Genesis was itself a law; Hence, the Pharisees were merely doing the same thing -- instituting another law upon their "children" by their actions as Father's; And, By the way -- although "Old men", might be one interpretation -- it has the wrong connotation; The Greek is presbyteros -- from where many christian organizations get the word "Presbyter" (Presbytarians....) but I digress....

Jesus sometimes comments: "Seek not to be called Father." and also "There is one father among you...." and those comments have to do with the responsibility of a Father's law (and righteousness OR sin) falling on the children.

I would like to point out --- according to righteousness --- Even. St. Paul (A Pharisee of Pharisees.... and a presbyter....) still claimed the same honor, saying Timothy is his "son" (Philemon 2:19-22), but Timothy is really his son "in faith"; 1Timo 1:2. , or again Titus in Titus 1:4, or an especially clear example is Philemon 1:10 where Onesimus is "BEGOTTEN" right there in prison by Paul ("in my bonds.") For that's where Onesimus was converted to Christ.

The tradition of the elders - The word παραδοσις, tradition, has occupied a most distinguished place, both in the Jewish and Christian Church. Man is ever fond of mending the work of his Maker; and hence he has been led to put his finishing hand even to Divine revelation! This supplementary matter has been called παραδοσις, from παραδιδομαι, to deliver from hand to hand - to transmit; and hence the Latin term, tradition, from trado, to deliver, especially from one to another; - to hand down.

OK. I don't know much about Latin, but OK.

Which law? Sin is not imputed where there is no law...

I'm afraid I lost your train of thought.
In Acts 15:28, and 29 -- we are told that the Apostles (and elders?) laid a law/rule upon the Gentiles not to eat strangled meats, or those with blood in them; This law (disciplinary) is from the Holy Spirit.

You seem to be bringing up a question about the law's enforcement, not it's existence?
I have merely been comparing what Paul said to what events can be seen in the bible -- not attempting to map out every implication. (Though we might if we keep going long enough...)

So if there was no sin prior to the law, why was the law brought in because of sin? See how silly this statement sounds? The law that was brought in because of sin is the law of sacrifices...

I think you over-read something I said.
In every nation, in every set of laws, there are some laws which exist because other laws can or will be broken. I am viewing laws as primary or secondary.

The Ten commandments, (primary law), for example, if obeyed -- had no need for any of the punitive laws which stem from breaking them.

I never said anywhere that sin "didn't" exist before the sacrificial law. I'm sorry if you got that impression.

 

[By Grace]

Hmmm, there is nothing stated that one cannot eat humans here.

Logic is often the first causality of an argument for which there is no scriptural support.

 

[John 8:32]

So, when the context is "every moving thing ... shall be meat for you" and the follow up is "And surely your blood of your lives will I require .... whoever sheds man blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."; are you saying cannibalism is not at least being *questioned*?

Now: I'll agree to this much: it's not a *strict* prohibition against eating man's flesh;
But the context is about food and the difference between man and animal (because man is the image of God).
It's not until John 6:51 that this dietary discussion is fully brought under the microscope....

Yes -- but there was no "LAW" found in scripture saying you couldn't eat unclean foods and spelling out penalties if you did.
It's fairly clear, to me, that Clean meats were the ones you sacrificed to God; unclean, were not thousands of years before Levitical law. BUT -- Beyond that, scripture doesn't give any solid evidence that I can find on clean and unclean meats. ( I'm purposely setting Cain's murder aside. )

At least.
The way the Father's acted in Genesis was itself a law; Hence, the Pharisees were merely doing the same thing -- instituting another law upon their "children" by their actions as Father's; And, By the way -- although "Old men", might be one interpretation -- it has the wrong connotation; The Greek is presbyteros -- from where many christian organizations get the word "Presbyter" (Presbytarians....) but I digress....

Jesus sometimes comments: "Seek not to be called Father." and also "There is one father among you...." and those comments have to do with the responsibility of a Father's law (and righteousness OR sin) falling on the children.

I would like to point out --- according to righteousness --- Even. St. Paul (A Pharisee of Pharisees.... and a presbyter....) still claimed the same honor, saying Timothy is his "son" (Philemon 2:19-22), but Timothy is really his son "in faith"; 1Timo 1:2. , or again Titus in Titus 1:4, or an especially clear example is Philemon 1:10 where Onesimus is "BEGOTTEN" right there in prison by Paul ("in my bonds.") For that's where Onesimus was converted to Christ.

OK. I don't know much about Latin, but OK.


I'm afraid I lost your train of thought.
In Acts 15:28, and 29 -- we are told that the Apostles (and elders?) laid a law/rule upon the Gentiles not to eat strangled meats, or those with blood in them; This law (disciplinary) is from the Holy Spirit.

You seem to be bringing up a question about the law's enforcement, not it's existence?
I have merely been comparing what Paul said to what events can be seen in the bible -- not attempting to map out every implication. (Though we might if we keep going long enough...)

I think you over-read something I said.
In every nation, in every set of laws, there are some laws which exist because other laws can or will be broken. I am viewing laws as primary or secondary.

The Ten commandments, (primary law), for example, if obeyed -- had no need for any of the punitive laws which stem from breaking them.

I never said anywhere that sin "didn't" exist before the sacrificial law. I'm sorry if you got that impression.

You are seeking to say that the clean and unclean laws were not in effect because they were not formally stated prior to Lev 11. Did the law against adultery exist prior to Mt. Sinai?

Gen 20:3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife.
Gen 20:4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?
Gen 20:5 Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.
Gen 20:6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

Now if the seventh Commandment did not exist prior to Mt. Sinai, then adultery would not be a sin...

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Now why did Paul mention that death reigned from Adam to Moses?

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

He was showing that the Law was ineffect prior to Mt. Sinai. Mt. Sinai was simply the codifying of the Law, not the invention of it. Same with clean and unclean meats, later in Lev 11 the rules are stated, but that was not the invention of clean and unclean, simply the codifying of it.

 

[By Grace]

Logic is often the first causality of an argument for which there is no scriptural support.

You are seeking to say that the clean and unclean laws were not in effect because they were not formally stated prior to Lev 11. Did the law against adultery exist prior to Mt. Sinai?

Logical error of false equality. You are seeking to place "eating commandments " on par with moral commandments. On the outskirts of Eden the first murder took place. There was a great penalty for that, bit not in eating "wrong food"

Gen 20:3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife.
Gen 20:4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?
Gen 20:5 Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.
Gen 20:6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

Now if the seventh Commandment did not exist prior to Mt. Sinai, then adultery would not be a sin..

Again, a false equality; this time it is another form of murder by taking from another man his wife. and you want to equate that with eating pork chops?

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Now why did Paul mention that death reigned from Adam to Moses?

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

He was showing that the Law was in effect prior to Mt. Sinai. Mt. Sinai was simply the codifying of the Law, not the invention of it. Same with clean and unclean meats, later in Lev 11 the rules are stated, but that was not the invention of clean and unclean, simply the codifying of it.

Another error of false equality, but there is also another error of context thrown in here:

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come
​

BUT LOOK AT THE CONTEXT: SALVATION

Romans 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
​

It is often said that any verse taken from its context is always a pretext. Please tell me how the stuff you posted is not a demonstration of taking Scripture from context and thus creating a pretext..

 

[About the Son of God]

You are seeking to say that the clean and unclean laws were not in effect because they were not formally stated prior to Lev 11. Did the law against adultery exist prior to Mt. Sinai?

To be clear; no I'm not saying that only being formally stated makes something into a law;
I've already said that Genesis is a law, so I am allowing that anything found IN Genesis in practice, is part of a law -- either as evidence, or as the Judgment of a particular case.

The very fact that Adultery is mentioned in Genesis as a sin by GOD means that it is a law already in effect.

Let me walk you through a biblical example, to clarify my understanding of scripture by an example; see:
Matthew 19:3 - 9

Jesus enters a malicious legal argument with the Pharisees (Paul whom you quote is also a Pharisee, by the way) -- and the argument centers on a question of divorce and "pornea" in marriage; ( Pornea is Greek, typically translated adultery, but the word includes idolatry, fornication, incest, and by Jesus' argument I would also argue polygamy, polyandry, and homosexual activities. The trap's malice is an attempt to get Jesus to identify himself exactly as John the Baptist -- in King Herod's territory or interpret the law loosely to discredit him. Jesus thwarts their plan in a technical manner beyond our discussions scope. )

What's important to notice (first) is that Jesus wins the argument and secondly; he bases his legal argument on Genesis 2:24.

Genesis, is therefore accepted by his opponents as LAW (they have no rebuttal) -- but it's obviously NOT statutory law. We also know it's law from other sources; -- from Rabbis, Talmuds, etc. who even today -- call the first five books of the bible (including Genesis) TORAH which means "Law".

The law of marriage is established by an example; the example is that God made two people one flesh ( Which also means the sexual act and gift of "slime of the earth" from one spouse to another ). He gives marriage for the purpose of procreating children ("Be fruitful and multiply") and having a partner for life. ("It's not good for the man to be alone").

The exclusive nature of marriage is what Jesus needs for his argument -- which is the thing making adultery possible; He shows us this restriction when he says "The TWO shall become one flesh" and his argument implicitly relies on the fact that Genesis doesn't say the three four five, etc. Nor did God create Adam a new wife when Eve did a perverted fruit thing (which is worthy of divorce, at least....) Nor did Adam marry a second wife, child, daughter, etc. but stayed with Eve until death. The example and stated purpose of marriage is that the "TWO" become one flesh.

Further points can be drawn from the example:
The heterosexual nature of marriage is also obviously established by the fact that God made a woman, and that the explanation of marriage is that "therefore" a man shall leave father and mother and cleave to his wife;

Now, I hope you don't jump to the conclusion that because eg: polygamy shows up with Cain in Genesis, that polygamy is lawful...

Genesis is a case history with judgments; and one needs to look for the judgments to see what is and isn't lawful.
It's the agreements (and judgments) come to by the Fathers, (including God the Father), which make the meaning of Genesis useful -- when applied as a Law.

 

[About the Son of God]

Continued...

Now if the seventh Commandment did not exist prior to Mt. Sinai, then adultery would not be a sin...

How do you come up with the number 7?
There is no numbering of the commandments in scripture; and verse numbers are a much later invention; Jesus only explicitly numbers two commandments found with the (10 commandments);

Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18
Jesus says commandments numbers 1 and 2 are: Matthew 22:37-39

And notice Jesus very pertinent summary....
Matth 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (kjv)
Which includes Genesis... IMHO.

He was showing that the Law was ineffect prior to Mt. Sinai. Mt. Sinai was simply the codifying of the Law, not the invention of it. Same with clean and unclean meats, later in Lev 11 the rules are stated, but that was not the invention of clean and unclean, simply the codifying of it.

Mt. Sainai was the codifying of some laws; but it was clearly also the wholesale introduction of a large number of previously unknown laws on account of sin.

Look again at what Jesus says:
Matth 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

A hardness of heart means a *sin*. It means the divine law did not penetrate the heart and so Moses added a law on account of sin.
Paul, too, tells us exactly the same thing:

Galat 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The law is an addition (There was one before it, and even from the very beginning -- even before death reigning and EVEN before EVE -- part of it is expressed Cf. Genesis 2:17 )

I don't mind Paul, but We're in a problem, when it comes to Paul. He (in Romans) is interested in silencing a fight between the ignorant and unwise (Romans 1:14); so that his writing is geared toward arguments that will silence argumentative people.

Paul's wisdom in dealing with fools (and less guilty, the ignorant) is explicitly mentioned elsewhere in scripture:

2Peter 3:16 As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

For example: When Paul speaks of "law", vs. when he speaks of "THE law"; it's difficult to correctly identify what exactly he means: The word LAW (Hebrew TORAH) is the first five books of the bible, Genesis, Leviticus, Exodus, Numbers, and Duteronomy.

With that in mind; Read Romans 3:10 (Thus it is written) and Romans 3:19 (what THE law says, it says to them who are under the law ) But check the quotes, in-between, and tell me which book of the law any of them come from.

If they aren't strictly from a book of the Law, then they might be understood as law only by certain sects of Jews (your law, vs. my law.); and we need to determine the scope of each kind of law he is addressing.

eg: Paul says the Gentiles are not "THE law" but "a law" unto themselves (and even then -- it's only WHEN certain conditions apply),etc. Romans 2:14.

Even though clean and unclean distinctions are mentioned in Genesis, that fact alone doesn't qualify them as "The LAW" -- but if they are used, or God shows a logical connection (like the creation of marriage is to divorce) then they can be considered something in the "law".

IT's possible that a later writer said NOE had clean and unclean animals; which is accurate, but anachronistic; or it's possible that the distinction was for a purpose not related to the later Levitical usage of it.

Take a look and see if you can find an example where God disapproves the eating of unclean animals, or even if someone refuses to eat one, or God refuses to give someone something unclean, anywhere in scripture after Noah but before Levitical law was codified.

If it's not there, then I'm going to assert it's not in "the law" until Moses places it there; and we can explore my reasoning in more depth if that would be helpful.

 

[John 8:32]

Logic is often the first causality of an argument for which there is no scriptural support.



Logical error of false equality. You are seeking to place "eating commandments " on par with moral commandments. On the outskirts of Eden the first murder took place. There was a great penalty for that, bit not in eating "wrong food"

Again, a false equality; this time it is another form of murder by taking from another man his wife. and you want to equate that with eating pork chops?



Another error of false equality, but there is also another error of context thrown in here:

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come
​

BUT LOOK AT THE CONTEXT: SALVATION

Romans 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
​

It is often said that any verse taken from its context is always a pretext. Please tell me how the stuff you posted is not a demonstration of taking Scripture from context and thus creating a pretext..

Nope, what I am saying is that just because a law is not formally stated prior to Ex 20 does not mean it did not exist. You are manipulating my statements to say thigns I did not say. Seems you are reaching very far to try to discredit the food laws.

 

[John 8:32]

Continued...
How do you come up with the number 7?

1.) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2.) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
3.) Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
4.) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5.) Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
6.) Thou shalt not kill.
7.) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8.) Thou shalt not steal.
9.) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10.) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

This is brand new to you?

 

[By Grace]

Nope, what I am saying is that just because a law is not formally stated prior to Ex 20 does not mean it did not exist. You are manipulating my statements to say thigns I did not say. Seems you are reaching very far to try to discredit the food laws.

Discrediting the "food laws" is easy. They exist no more.
Anyone who reads Acts and Galatians can see that. However, there is an exception to being able to see that, and that is if you belong to a fringe church which teaches "salvation by diet" and other similar silly heresies.


I also discredited your position because I demonstrated that you neglect to maintain the context of a Scripture passage, and thus coome up with pretextural reasons to support a false doctrine. it is like when some groups wish to put forth a particular idea, they go searching for Scripture by finding tangential verses, or phrases that are ripped from their context in order to support a pretext.

The proper way to determine a doctrine is by exegesis in the context, and not by cherry picking words and phrases.

 

[About the Son of God]

1.) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2.) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
3.) Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
4.) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5.) Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
6.) Thou shalt not kill.
7.) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8.) Thou shalt not steal.
9.) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10.) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

This is brand new to you?

That's not the only way they are numbered. There are different rabbinical traditions.
My question is simply "WHERE" did you get the number 7 ? Who gave it to you, what bible has them numbered -- and from what original source text.
Or do you know?

When I count the sentences in the 10 commandments, there aren't 10. So, to make it "come out" I've noticed that people adjust which sentence belongs to which numbered commandment; it's one of those "tradition" things.

Also, when studying this .... I've noticed in scripture, when a Hebrew swears an oath -- the original language has the Hebrew word for "7" where we translate it "Oath" in English.
So, when a Hebrew says "I swear" they are literally saying "I seven" in Hebrew.
Also, I've found that in Egyptian writing when something is "Good" or "divine" they use the number "10";

The codification of the so called "10" commandments happens when a set of Egyptian "Slaves" left with Israelites into the desert led by a Pharao's ex-grandson; and in the revelation of a law from the (solitary) finger of God -- Moses happens to call the commands "10" (a very Pharaoh like thing to do) ..... But as I've noted, there aren't 10 of them marked out.

So, I look for other evidence in the new testament:
Jesus, when listing them -- has his own ordering of them that are nothing like your numbers 5 to 10; and more often there are 6 commands in that group.

Matthew 19:18 [1] Thou shalt do no murder, [2] Thou shalt not commit adultery, [3] Thou shalt not steal [4] Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Matthew 19:19 [5] Honour thy father and thy mother: and, [6] Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mark 10:19 [1]Do not commit adultery, [2]Do not kill, [3]Do not steal, [4]Do not bear false witness, [5]Defraud not, [6]Honour thy father and mother.
Luke 18:20 [1]Do not commit adultery, [2]Do not kill, [3]Do not steal, [4]Do not bear false witness, [5]Honour thy father and thy mother.

It's only possible that 4 more commands could exist if there are only 10 of them, and the way Jesus lists them -- Adultery would be number 6 at the absolute latest.

I wonder why....

 

[John 8:32]

That's not the only way they are numbered. There are different rabbinical traditions.
My question is simply "WHERE" did you get the number 7 ? Who gave it to you, what bible has them numbered -- and from what original source text.
Or do you know?

When I count the sentences in the 10 commandments, there aren't 10. So, to make it "come out" I've noticed that people adjust which sentence belongs to which numbered commandment; it's one of those "tradition" things.

Also, when studying this .... I've noticed in scripture, when a Hebrew swears an oath -- the original language has the Hebrew word for "7" where we translate it "Oath" in English.
So, when a Hebrew says "I swear" they are literally saying "I seven" in Hebrew.
Also, I've found that in Egyptian writing when something is "Good" or "divine" they use the number "10";

The codification of the so called "10" commandments happens when a set of Egyptian "Slaves" left with Israelites into the desert led by a Pharao's ex-grandson; and in the revelation of a law from the (solitary) finger of God -- Moses happens to call the commands "10" (a very Pharaoh like thing to do) ..... But as I've noted, there aren't 10 of them marked out.

So, I look for other evidence in the new testament:
Jesus, when listing them -- has his own ordering of them that are nothing like your numbers 5 to 10; and more often there are 6 commands in that group.

Matthew 19:18 [1] Thou shalt do no murder, [2] Thou shalt not commit adultery, [3] Thou shalt not steal [4] Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Matthew 19:19 [5] Honour thy father and thy mother: and, [6] Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mark 10:19 [1]Do not commit adultery, [2]Do not kill, [3]Do not steal, [4]Do not bear false witness, [5]Defraud not, [6]Honour thy father and mother.
Luke 18:20 [1]Do not commit adultery, [2]Do not kill, [3]Do not steal, [4]Do not bear false witness, [5]Honour thy father and thy mother.

It's only possible that 4 more commands could exist if there are only 10 of them, and the way Jesus lists them -- Adultery would be number 6 at the absolute latest.

I wonder why....

Well, believe any tradition you wish, adios me boyo.

 

[John 8:32]

In Matthew 15:11 Jesus declared all foods to be clean. Your scripture says to us that if your conscience says not to eat something, then you should not, or, if someone else has a belief that they hold to not eat a particular food, then you should respect it and not be a stumbling block to them.

Romans 14 details this.

1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”
12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.[c]

The number one rule of Bible study? Context...

Mat 15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

The subject here is the Pharisees ceremonial washings.

 

[By Grace]

The number one rule of Bible study? Context...

Mat 15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

The subject here is the Pharisees ceremonial washings.

Here you demonstrate that you are ignoring the context because you limit the section to he about ONLY ceremonial washings. Food laws is a part of the ceremonial laws. Therefore, you skewer your position with the answers that you post.

Please tell us exactly why the food laws are significant. Is that there will be a greater reward for those who eat kosher, or do you not follow kosher, in favor of something else?