Food laws

[JCitoL]

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.

it means that all things which the true God has made are clean as a rule, and that it's possible something to be unclean to some believer/spiritual servant who is involved in spiritual/religious iniquity, or to some human who is affected by the system of spiritual/religious iniquity, a very typical example for this is the case with the original sin and the people who were affected after

Genesis 3:1-7 "Now the serpent(i.e. and lo, the devil came from the "darkness", and it) was more subtil than any beast(i.e. and it was guileful as opposed to the things) of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of(i.e. which is beyond) the garden(viz. the "tree" which to the humans is occultism/esotericism), God hath said, Ye shall not eat of(i.e. you must not practise) it, neither shall ye touch(i.e. neither shall you explore) it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened(i.e. then occult/yogic perceptions/senses will appear in you), and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil(i.e. and you will be as the God Himself, viz. with omniscience and omnipotence like Him). And when the woman saw that the tree was(i.e. that the forbidden "tree" ostensibly looked) good for food, and that it was(i.e. and that it ostensibly looked) pleasant to the eyes(i.e. to the human mind), and a tree to be desired to make one wise(i.e. to make the human being omniscient and omnipotent), she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened(i.e. and occult/yogic perceptions/senses appeared in them both), and they knew that they were naked(i.e. and from that moment on they began to perceive the sex and the other creations of God as shameful/sinful); and they sewed fig leaves(i.e. and they found (great) false spiritual knowledge) together, and made themselves aprons(i.e. and made themselves human(666) spirituality/religion starting to defile the sex and the other creations of God via it).",

Romans 5:12-14 "by one man(i.e. by the generation of spiritual/religious violators/offenders) sin(i.e. the devil and its kingdom which is the system of spiritual/religious iniquity) entered into the world, and death(i.e. and the vitiation) by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned(i.e. and so many humans were overtaken by the "sin" and "death", some of them as its servants, while others as its victims): For until the law(i.e. for even before the entry of human religion) sin was in the world(i.e. the "darkness" was in the universe): but sin is not imputed when there is no law(i.e. but the appearance of the "darkness" cannot enter/reign in the world where there is no human(666) spirituality/religion). Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression(i.e. even over those who had not done the very sin which is the spiritual/religious iniquity)"

Blessings

 

[About the Son of God]

John 8:32
I didn't post a tradition of any kind that I believe. I asked you why you called it commandment #7.
That's all. Why do you place a tradition in MY mouth?

 

[About the Son of God]

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

And again, the law was rolled back to what was told to Noah.

Genes 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
Genes 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.


In the flood of Noah, all animals that moved upon the land were killed ; and this cleansed the earth from man's sin.
Upon Noah disembarking; God allowed Noah, who was righteous -- to eat of all animals that moved.

 

[By Grace]

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

What are some of the traditions that your church follows, John 832?

Every church/denomination has its own, and sometimes those traditions are considered as indicators of being the "only perfect church". Those are things whereby they can feel good about their traditions are given by someone with special authority, and those traditions mark the difference between God's people, and not God's people. Does your church have those sorts of thing?

 

[jasoncran]

[MENTION=94666]About the Son of God[/MENTION]. don't ruin the legalist's logic with that biblical fact. even Chassidic kosher jews say the noachides aren't under the kosher laws.

 

[By Grace]

From which Bible version are you quoting?

it means that all things which the true God has made are clean as a rule, and that it's possible something to be unclean to some believer/spiritual servant who is involved in spiritual/religious iniquity, or to some human who is affected by the system of spiritual/religious iniquity, a very typical example for this is the case with the original sin and the people who were affected after

What you wrote CANNOT be substantiated by the verse quoted below.
Remember this?

Originally Posted by lioncub
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.

As a result, it appears that you are adding to what God clearly stated. Since God declared all foods clean here and in Acts 10, then ALL FOODS ARE CLEAN. That includes pigs, snakes, camels and vultures.

Original sin is a doctrine having to do with salvation, not salivation or eating.

 

[JCitoL]

From which Bible version are you quoting?

What you wrote CANNOT be substantiated by the verse quoted below.
Remember this?

As a result, it appears that you are adding to what God clearly stated. Since God declared all foods clean here and in Acts 10, then ALL FOODS ARE CLEAN. That includes pigs, snakes, camels and vultures.

Original sin is a doctrine having to do with salvation, not salivation or eating.

why then some believers even till now deemed the consumption of certain foods for sinful, e.g. the hindus deemed the eating of meat for sinful?!

Blessings

 

[By Grace]

why then some believers even till now deemed the consumption of certain foods for sinful, e.g. the hindus deemed the eating of meat for sinful?! Blessings

What exactly are you saying here?

Why would you use a pagan religion to promote "food laws" that have been abolished for Christians?

For the SECOND time, I ask:
From which Bible version are you quoting?

 

[reba]

This thread has been moved to General Talk.....

 

[About the Son of God]

Hindus aren't believers in Paul's eyes; eg: Those verses are restricted to Christians, and (perhaps) to someone becoming Christian.

Concerning the interpreting of laws from Adam to Noah; some believers converting to Christ ( I think they were of Jewish origin ) understood God to have only given the fruits and plants to be food for man; Genesis 1:29 and 30 ; Exactly what Paul is dealing with, I am not certain -- but it appears to be an argument about whether or not man is to eat flesh of animals at all; and in Paul's thinking -- such things are irrelevant on account of Jesus Christ.

There are a few things to be aware of when interpreting scriptures in light of the NT...

1) Paul does not explain what convinces him, but only says "I am convinced by Jesus..."; meaning that his logic is from a personal encounter, and he is not willing to impose it on others as a general rule with the reasoning expounded to all cases.
2) Paul asks that meat eating Christians do not condemn vegetarians, but bear with them for having weak consciences.
3) Paul also tells meat eating Christians not to allow vegetarians to impose their views on other believers.

Because Paul invoked the personal view without detail, and refuses to settle the case definitively; I think he is simply denying purview of himself as Judge, over a universal law. The basis of his rejection is simply that God is presently dealing with both groups of people according to his own will, and we know God has not revealed a command requiring a believer to be either vegetarian or omnivore, in order to be saved. (There is no basis for condemnation of either group.)

Separately:

4) In Acts 10; St. Peter receives a vision declaring all foods clean, which he at first doubts. The vision's clarification, though, resides in the Holy Spirit arriving upon Gentiles who have not been baptized in water -- but which Peter is to go see. The troubling issue about Peter seeing them is that Gentile's food and preparation is "unclean" in Moses' law; and Peter hasn't been taught why they cease to exist upon Jesus' death.

5) However, the vision Peter was given had a very real "sign" which apparently clarified the meaning; The Holy Spirit (who cleanses) came upon a specific Gentile household, and that makes them sanctified (clean and holy.); at which point, Peter no longer has an objection when it came to eating in their house.

There are subtle issues that were not dealt with in Peter's vision; such as, would eating with pagans who still worship other Gods be acceptable... etc.
and it seems to me, that Paul (being a lawyer) is attempting to work all those more complicated issues out; and hadn't completed them by the time he wrote his epistles.

That's why the Holy Spirit's involvement is important (IMHO). The Spirit's decision is definitive and places a light burden upon Gentiles with a very simple food law; No strangled animals, or blood; Both of which, I think, are associated with pagan/idol worship.

None of this really applies to Hindus, or any other religion; for they aren't servants of Jesus Christ and their violation is taken for granted of any rule placed on man by Jesus, his Holy Spirit, or God in general.

Even so... For peoples who's ancestry is shared with us in the time of Genesis but not Jesus Christ:
I think the vegetarian view of Genesis is not a truly valid one; for God doesn't ban Adam from eating animals;
Adam who is made in the image and likeness of God -- witnesses God slaying animals for the sake of Man when he left the Garden.
The purpose of Adam being in the garden was twofold -- till and KEEP it. To KEEP a garden includes preventing overpopulating and grazing.
Sometimes killing is necessary to achieve that end; How much better it would be if he had just figured out he could kill the snake....!

Upon ejection from the Garden; We have ample evidence that animal killing happened (Abel's lamb).
When God chose to give Cain a punishment, it was that he could no longer be a farmer (no plants for you to eat.); and every extrabiblical ancient source I have found, agrees, that Cain and his children were hunters. (with one final tie in):

In terms of priesthood, Cain was the elder (presbuteros), and priests are generally allowed to have a share of the meat offering -- which would include Abel's lamb; There is a particular ban in Levitical law against cutting up a bird (same as Abraham refused to do) that is also evidenced in the sentence where God reprimands Cain; The word is found twice in the Greek copies of the Old Testament (which are older than the oldest Hebrew manuscripts we have.); In God's reprimand to Cain, and also to God's forbidding of Levitical priests to do the same as Cain did.

That last point is obscure, and unless you really want to study Greek -- I won't detail it out; but it merely means that animal sacrifice -- and doing it right or wrong (suffering animal, humane, how much of a "cut" a butcher or priest keeps) was part of the law all the way back to Genesis immediately after ejection from the Garden.

As far as I can tell -- the prohibition/practice of being vegetarian ended whenever God gave us our canine teeth, designed to tear *meat*.

 

[Ryan]

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=49272


http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=26384

Here are 2 threads that dealt with this same topic not to long ago. I've already been there done that with this topic, so unless there isn't anything new to address, i'll just leave these links for ones own reading pleasure.

 

[JCitoL]

What exactly are you saying here?

Why would you use a pagan religion to promote "food laws" that have been abolished for Christians?

For the SECOND time, I ask:
From which Bible version are you quoting?

we do not follow/serve/bow to any pagan religion, but we have meant that if any spiritual servant/worker believes that some or another consumption is sinful then it may not consume it hereof, and also it may more or less defile it thus, here is a Scripture:

Romans 14:14-23 "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing(i.e. that there is no such thing made/created of the true God which is) unclean(also: sinful) of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat(i.e. but if you cause hurt/harm to any human), now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat(i.e. by such a way/activity), for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of:..... For meat(i.e. for spoil(self-interest)) destroy not the work of God. All things(i.e. all things made/created on the part of the true God) indeed are pure(also: sinless); but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence(i.e. who causes hurt/harm to any other human/soul). It is good neither to eat flesh(i.e. neither to practise idolatry), nor to drink wine(i.e. nor to practise occultism), nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in(i.e. blessed is that who does not condemn itself causing hurt/harm to another human by) that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth(i.e. and it that does spiritual/religious iniquity) is damned if he eat(i.e. if it practise the faith thus), because he eateth not of faith(i.e. because its faith is not right): for whatsoever is not of faith(i.e. for each spiritual/religious iniquity) is sin."

Blessings

 

[By Grace]

This thread has been moved to General Talk.....

Thank you!

 

[By Grace]

we do not follow/serve/bow to any pagan religion, but we have meant that if any spiritual servant/worker believes that some or another consumption is sinful then it may not consume it hereof, and also it may more or less defile it thus,

Who is "we"?

here is a Scripture:

Romans 14:14-23 "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing(i.e. that there is no such thing made/created of the true God which is) unclean(also: sinful) of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat(i.e. but if you cause hurt/harm to any human), now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat(i.e. by such a way/activity), for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of:..... For meat(i.e. for spoil(self-interest)) destroy not the work of God. All things(i.e. all things made/created on the part of the true God) indeed are pure(also: sinless); but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence(i.e. who causes hurt/harm to any other human/soul). It is good neither to eat flesh(i.e. neither to practise idolatry), nor to drink wine(i.e. nor to practise occultism), nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in(i.e. blessed is that who does not condemn itself causing hurt/harm to another human by) that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth(i.e. and it that does spiritual/religious iniquity) is damned if he eat(i.e. if it practise the faith thus), because he eateth not of faith(i.e. because its faith is not right): for whatsoever is not of faith(i.e. for each spiritual/religious iniquity) is sin."

Blessings

For the THIRD time, I ask:
From which Bible version are you quoting?

 

[JCitoL]

Who is "we"?

we are just witnesses of God and Jesus

For the THIRD time, I ask:
From which Bible version are you quoting?

we in principle use the king james version (kjv 1900)

Blessings

 

[Sparkey]

From which Bible version are you quoting?



What you wrote CANNOT be substantiated by the verse quoted below.
Remember this?


As a result, it appears that you are adding to what God clearly stated. Since God declared all foods clean here and in Acts 10, then ALL FOODS ARE CLEAN. That includes pigs, snakes, camels and vultures.

Original sin is a doctrine having to do with salvation, not salivation or eating.

Can you show me that is what Peter thought? My impression was that he thought the vision may have been given for a different purpose. We're talking about Acts 10, right? When three times Peter disobeyed (yet again) what was clearly commanded, this time he replied, “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied, “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” It was later (after he continued to refuse to eat) that he understood. "He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?”

Cornelius (the centurion) replied, “Three days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me and said, ‘Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.’ So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us.”

Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.”

I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.

It was then, even as Peter spoke (and communed with them as directed by the Holy Spirit, while heeding the message of the vision, not to call any person whom God has cleansed "unclean" that the Holy Spirit fell.

He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

Then Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water.

Notice what Peter said about the Vision that was given when he went back to Jerusalem and reported to the others:

The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.” (Acts 11:1-3)

See especially Acts 11:4 and the conclusion (or beginning?) of the matter as seen in Acts 11:18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

 

[By Grace]

we are just witnesses of God and Jesus



we in principle us the king james version (kjv 1900)

Blessings

What??? There is no 1900 KJV Bible, and I did not ask "what do you ise 'in principle'"? I asked from what version do your quotes come? Specifically there is inserted text, and from what version do you quote?
Why are you being so evasive to simple questions?

Are you a part of the Seventh Day Adventists, or another group?

 

[By Grace]

Can you show me that is what Peter thought? My impression was that he thought the vision may have been given for a different purpose. We're talking about Acts 10, right? When three times Peter disobeyed (yet again) what was clearly commanded, this time he replied, “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied, “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” It was later (after he continued to refuse to eat) that he understood. "He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?”

Cornelius was not upon that sheet, so eating humans was not in the picture. (being facetious)

Only ANIMALS were on the sheet, and three times God said, "kill and eat." therefore we can safely conclude from the text that God called pigs, camels serpents and other animals clean to eat.

Cornelius (the centurion) replied, “Three days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me and said, ‘Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.’ So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us.”

Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.”

What I made bold is the key phrase. It is NOT "salvation bu stomach" as some who mistakenly believe in "food laws" would push but salvation by grace alone. Do you not remember how the leaders of the Temple charged Jesus with "eating with sinners"? Do you think for an instance that those "sinners" ate kosher? Of course not! So why do those who insist on "food laws" want others to do what Jesus Himself did not do? That is why the idea os simply in error.


It was then, even as Peter spoke (and communed with them as directed by the Holy Spirit, while heeding the message of the vision, not to call any person whom God has cleansed "unclean" that the Holy Spirit fell.

Notice what Peter said about the Vision that was given when he went back to Jerusalem and reported to the others:

The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.” (Acts 11:1-3)

See especially Acts 11:4 and the conclusion (or beginning?) of the matter as seen in Acts 11:18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

To believe that the "food laws exist is to reinvent the Galatians heresy. Essentially they believed that in order for one to become a Christian, one first had to become a Jew, and to be circumcized (thus the emphasis on the "circumcised" by Dr. Luke. If you look at the religious history of the US, you will find that those who are the current proponents of the "food laws" are the ones who were connected with William Miller's 1844 Great Disappointment of Christ's Second Advent and about 30 years later with Charles Taze Russell the founder of the Jehovah Witnesses?

Iit is indeed sad, but those who would foist on others the "necessity of 'food laws" are the very ones who will seek to exchange the freedom that believers in Christ have witth a series of unscriptural "laws" that is actually a bondage to human made law-keeping. Iit is NOT of God to impose laws on Christians after they are saved.

 

[Sparkey]

I'm not aware of any "foisting" or passing off as genuine, valuable, or worthy that which is not genuine, worthy or valuable here. I've just asked if you were certain of what Peter thought and provided scriptural evidence of what he testified about. Your conclusions are yours.

 

[JCitoL]

What??? There is no 1900 KJV Bible, and I did not ask "what do you ise 'in principle'"? I asked from what version do your quotes come? Specifically there is inserted text, and from what version do you quote?
Why are you being so evasive to simple questions?

Are you a part of the Seventh Day Adventists, or another group?

we are not evasive to any question, but we just omitted to answer you about this somehow - honestly it depends on the spiritual viz. what we were commanded on the part of God this we did, but (God forbid) there might be also a certain interference, moreover such a question (i.e. about the version of the Bible and suchlike) is not of most crucial importance, so the version of the Bible which we have (so far) used in this thread is kjv 1900, here's a link: http://biblia.com/books/kjv1900/Ge

and concerning the inserted text, it is an explanation of the respective word(s), verse(s) and context which (explanation) we receive from the true God and Jesus in order to insert it there when we testify Their Word by the Scripture in writing

Blessings