The "bless whatever you eat" lie!

[Free]

Theo, as usual, your posts have much food for thought.

Pun intended? :p

 

[handy]

 

[precepts]

Wow! Pun intended!

 

[handy]

Theo,

Just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about your posts...as you said, they are long with much to go over and I haven't had the time I thought I would. I am reading through them and processing them...and will answer when I have a handle on all that I both agree and disagree with in them.

 

[Theofilus]

Theo,

Just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about your posts...as you said, they are long with much to go over and I haven't had the time I thought I would. I am reading through them and processing them...and will answer when I have a handle on all that I both agree and disagree with in them.

I'm glad you're still there. For a while, I thought I had killed the tread, and don't want to do that.

 

[Vic C.]

First off, thanks to TheLords for keeping a watchful eye on this thread for us.

Now, has anyone looked at what Paul said from his cultural POV?

How for do we go about checking the sources of our food and how practical (or possible) is it to inquire about whether or not our food was been offered up to and blessed by idols?

Can idols (as in idles, lol), which are inanimate objects and have NO real power, bless anything?

Does one not believe God has no power over what we eat? Either He is omnipotent or He's not.

Just more "food for thought". :D

 

[l'Chante]

Okay, let’s get practical. I’m off to the butcher to buy meat. (Not for myself – I’m vegetarian – but for my daughter who loves meat)
I seriously doubt that any of the meat would have been offered to some weirdo god before it made its way into the butchery. What should I buy?






And don’t give me ‘soya’!!

 

[Theofilus]

Okay, let’s get practical. I’m off to the butcher to buy meat. (Not for myself – I’m vegetarian – but for my daughter who loves meat)
I seriously doubt that any of the meat would have been offered to some weirdo god before it made its way into the butchery. What should I buy?






And don’t give me ‘soya’!!

Don't worry. There's no chance that I will ever give you soya or other artificial meat. Unless you have reason to believe that the meat in question might have been offered to "some weirdo god", you can by any meat that the Bible allows. This includes meat from:

• Any four footed animals that have cloven hooves and chew their cud, such as beef, viel, ox, bison, venison, lamb, mutton, goat, giraffe and others, but not pork, rabbit, elephant or rat.
• Any fish that has fins and scales (pretty much all of them)
• Any bird that isn't a bird of prey. Turkey, chicken, quail, pheasant and others are ok, but avoid meat from owls, eagles, buzzards and vultures.
• Any insect that has hind feet that are long, so that they have a joint above the body, such as grasshoppers, crickets and locusts. No spiders, ants or other creepy crawlies though.

If you know it's been sacrificed, as is the case for most of the lamb in the stores here in Reykjavik, then you should avoid it. If you suspect that it has been sacrificed but aren't sure, you should probably also avoid it.

 

[l'Chante]

:D Our butcheries don’t sell locusts, vultures or giraffes. I guess I’m safe then, except for the pork bit. Maybe I’m just ignorant, but why would I suspect an animal would’ve been sacrificed?

 

[l'Chante]

Oh, another question. What about mussels, prawns, crayfish etc? Say for instance I buy her a seafood pizza?

 

[handy]

Theo, at last I have a quiet morning that I can truly give your posts a thoughtful response!


The posts are long, but after reading them through, I think I’ve come to a fundamental disagreement that, if we can but settle it, causes the rest to more or less fall into place.

Let’s start here:

I can guarantee you that Noah never ate pork. He only ate of the clean animals. That's why there were seven pair of each on the ark. They had to provide food for Noah and his family until the vegetation recovered and they had fruits, vegetables and grains again. Until then, they ate nothing but meat.

Up until after everyone left the ark, there is no mention of anyone eating any meat, of any kind, any where. God had given nothing but the plants for food for both the animals and humans. It was only after Noah and his family left the ark that God gave the animals to eat…and then He gave ALL animals to eat.

From Genesis 9: 1-3 “And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. "The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given.
"Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.

Compare this to Genesis 1:29-30 “Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.â€

So, up until Noah and his family left the ark, no one, not even the animals ate meat. But, after they left the ark, God gave all animals as food.

I started here because the fundamental disagreement I have with your posts is that “belief†the early church was embracing was “Messianic Judaismâ€. The basic idea from what I understand as Messianic Judaism is that Jesus is indeed Messiah and only through Him is salvation, but we achieve sanctification via following the Torah…and I don’t find that to be taught in either the gospels or the epistles.

The reason why I started with the quote about Noah and eating meat is because if eating meat was intrinsically wrong, as eating or drinking blood is, then it would always be sinful. But, for Noah, Abraham, Israel, etc…eating any kind of meat was not considered sinful…as a matter of fact, it was something God freely gave. God freely gave all meat to eat, then later, much, much later, (well over a 1000 years by conservative estimates), God commanded the nation of Israel to not eat certain meats. This tells me several things…that eating any kind of meat isn’t intrinsically sinful and that God had a specific purpose in mind when He commanded the dietary laws for the nation of Israel.

So, just what was the “purpose†of the Law given to Moses? Paul explains the answer very clearly to the Galatians:
Galatians 3:15-25: “Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.
What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.
Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.
Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.
Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

To me, this is clear that Paul is no where near teaching a form of “Messianic Judaism†but rather something far more radical…something that Christ Himself brought forth when He said, “for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.†The Law never imparted life or righteousness; rather it was a curse to all as Paul had just explained:
Galatians 3:1013: “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM." Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."
However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"-

Far from bringing about faith or righteousness, the Law brought about a curse of death…the righteous live by faith…but those who practice the Law must live by them, and the end result of living by the Law is that we soon learn that we are awakened to all kinds of sin and die.

So, I disagree that the Apostles were ushering a kind of Messianic Judaism, rather the early church transitioned God’s people from living under the Law of Moses (a curse) to living under the New Covenant, a New Covenant with the Law that Christ Himself gave us:
"YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." Luke 10:27

(Sorry for the caps, that is how the NASB translates it though.)

As far as to whether or not Jesus declared all meats clean when He spoke of things going into the mouth and being digested and eliminated, perhaps Mark makes it clearer:
After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, "Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. ["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."]
When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:14-19)

 

[handy]

It has sort of come to me that perhaps Theo and I are straying from the topic which was more about meats sacrificed to idols...

but in reality it still all goes back to the Law. But, not the Law of Moses, rather the Law of Christ...the Law of Love.

As has been mentioned, there really are no other gods...just peoples imagination. However, if someone is led into idol worship, we are breaking the Law of love, not loving our neighbor as ourselves. Or, if one truly feels it is sin to eat something that might have been sacrificed to an idol, then we are not loving God with all our heart to do something we believe is sin.

 

[Hitch]

Speaking of fundamental changes..

There was a big one between your quote;

Compare this to Genesis 1:29-30 “Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so

and the Flood. That event was marked by the first animal sacrifice . We still live under the effects of what happened, as does all creation.
That Noah already understood clean from unclean , as did Abel, strongly implies consumption, as sacrificial animals are not wasted.

 

[handy]

Speaking of fundamental changes..

There was a big one between your quote;

Compare this to Genesis 1:29-30 “Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so

and the Flood. That event was marked by the first animal sacrifice . We still live under the effects of what happened, as does all creation.
That Noah already understood clean from unclean , as did Abel, strongly implies consumption, as sacrificial animals are not wasted.

I have to disagree.

I'm not exactly sure you mean with this sentence: "That event was marked by the first animal sacrifice." The first animal sacrifice was when God made a covering of an animal skin for Adam and Eve and then Abel sacrificed a lamb...long before the Flood. Hence the "clean" and "unclean" animals...for sacrifice.

But, not for eating. Although one might feel there is an "implication" of consumption...we don't have to read into implications here. We have the Scriptures pretty clear on this...that plants were given for food in Genesis 1...that there is zero, zip, absolutely no mention of eating animals up until Genesis 9, after Noah and his family disembarked from the ark, and then God gave ALL the animals to eat, not just "clean" animals.

 

[Hitch]

I have to disagree.

I'm not exactly sure you mean with this sentence: "That event was marked by the first animal sacrifice." The first animal sacrifice was when God made a covering of an animal skin for Adam and Eve and then Abel sacrificed a lamb...long before the Flood. Hence the "clean" and "unclean" animals...for sacrifice.

But, not for eating. Although one might feel there is an "implication" of consumption...we don't have to read into implications here. We have the Scriptures pretty clear on this...that plants were given for food in Genesis 1...that there is zero, zip, absolutely no mention of eating animals up until Genesis 9, after Noah and his family disembarked from the ark, and then God gave ALL the animals to eat, not just "clean" animals.

By the same token I dont know of any directly spoken requirement that Adam cover himself.

It seems you're working under the assumption that the Law as given to Moses was something new.

 

[Elijah674]

Inspiration Documents..

Isa. 66
[15] For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.

[16] For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.
[17] They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, [shall be consumed together, saith the LORD].

Manny will say Lord Lord! Matt. 7:21 on.. .

--Elijah

 

[handy]

By the same token I dont know of any directly spoken requirement that Adam cover himself.

It seems you're working under the assumption that the Law as given to Moses was something new.

God covered Adam with an animal skin...besides Adam and Eve had tried, unsuccessfully to cover themselves, being embarrassed to be naked.

So, although there wasn't any "directly spoken" requirement that Adam cover himself, God nonetheless covered him and Eve. But, there is nothing, nothing at all to indicate and any animal flesh was eaten by anyone, human or animal, until after the fall, as a matter of fact, Genesis 1:29-30 and Genesis 9:1-3 make it clear that there was no flesh consumed. Look closely at what God said in Genesis 9:3: "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant."

Yes, this is something new.

As far as working under the assumption that the Law as given to Moses was something new as well...yes, I believe it was.

I'm not saying that the Lord did not have commandments, even statutes that believers needed to follow prior to Moses...Isaac was blessed because his father, Abraham obeyed the Lord and kept "My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws." (Genesis 26:5)

But, we don't know exactly what all those commandments, statutes and laws were, nor should we try to "fill in the blanks" with assumptions. Especially if the assumption goes against what the Bible clearly tells us, which is that God gave ALL the animals for food.

Is anyone disagreeing that God gave Noah and his family ALL the animals for food?

 

[Hitch]

God covered Adam with an animal skin...besides Adam and Eve had tried, unsuccessfully to cover themselves, being embarrassed to be naked.

So, although there wasn't any "directly spoken" requirement that Adam cover himself, God nonetheless covered him and Eve. But, there is nothing, nothing at all to indicate and any animal flesh was eaten by anyone, human or animal, until after the fall, as a matter of fact, Genesis 1:29-30 and Genesis 9:1-3 make it clear that there was no flesh consumed. Look closely at what God said in Genesis 9:3: "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant."

Yes, this is something new.

As far as working under the assumption that the Law as given to Moses was something new as well...yes, I believe it was.

I'm not saying that the Lord did not have commandments, even statutes that believers needed to follow prior to Moses...Isaac was blessed because his father, Abraham obeyed the Lord and kept "My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws." (Genesis 26:5)

But, we don't know exactly what all those commandments, statutes and laws were, nor should we try to "fill in the blanks" with assumptions. Especially if the assumption goes against what the Bible clearly tells us, which is that God gave ALL the animals for food.

Is anyone disagreeing that God gave Noah and his family ALL the animals for food?

assumption goes against what the Bible clearly tells us, which is that God gave ALL the animals for food.

Is anyone disagreeing that God gave Noah and his family ALL the animals for food?


Since its plain Noah knew clean from not, its not stretching much to think that knowledge was included and 'every moving thing' is to be understood in that light. Just as every green plant does not include plants that are toxic to humans.

I think there is a lot more continuity than you're allowing for. Bloody sacrifices began in the first generation and carried through until late in the first century.

 

[Theofilus]

Is anyone disagreeing that God gave Noah and his family ALL the animals for food?

Yes, I am. You say that God gave us all animals, in the same way He gave us all fruits. But did He give us all fruits? Did He give us the fruit of the holly, mistletoe, snowberry, osage orange or thorn apple to eat? All of those fruits and more are poisonous. Some animals are also poisonous, such as blowfish or shark. I think it's obvious that "all animals" meant "all food animals", just as "all fruit" means only those fruits that are fit for consumption.

 

[handy]

I guess I'm just much more careful with making assumptions when the clear texts tend to disagree.

I agree that sacrifices began with the first generation...but not that they ate the sacrifice...there is just nothing to indicate that they did.

Consider the fact that even all animals were herbivores back then...including lions and tigers.

If God gave just plants to all living creatures to eat...why would anyone, including Noah and his family suddenly decide to eat that which was sacrificed to God? Where did God even give His permission to do so?

We tend to think of "clean" and "unclean" as describing food. First and foremost the list of "clean" vs. "unclean" was concerning what was fit to sacrifice. It was only after the Law of Moses that we see "clean" and "unclean" being applied to food.

Notice how this is described in Leviticus11:1-8:

The LORD spoke again to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them, "Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'These are the creatures which you may eat from all the animals that are on the earth. 'Whatever divides a hoof, thus making split hoofs, and chews the cud, among the animals, that you may eat.

'Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these, among those which chew the cud, or among those which divide the hoof: the camel, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you. 'Likewise, the shaphan, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; and the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you.

'You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you."



If these animals were always considered "unclean" to eat...why bother with teaching them what was OK and not OK to eat and why the reiteration...it is unclean to you.

Just the way the whole passage starts out...and I believe this is the first passage that deals specifically with eating "clean" and "unclean" foods, ...God says, "These are the creatures you may eat from all of the animals on the earth..." There is that repetition of "all the animals on the earth". We saw that in Genesis 9 when God gave all the animals on the earth to eat....now He is saying from all the animals on the earth, you may only eat certain ones, the rest are "unclean" to you...

Going back to Noah...the story itself confirms that the "clean" animals were for sacrifices...

Genesis 8:15-20: "Then God spoke to Noah, saying, "Go out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and your sons' wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you, birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, that they may breed abundantly on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth."

So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him. Every beast, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves on the earth, went out by their families from the ark.

Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar.


As for the plants...who is to say that there were toxic plants back then...again, more assumptions. We know that the Flood greatly altered the world, things just were never the same again. Certain animals became carnivores for the first time. I believe people became omnivores, as well as other animals, for the first time. It could very well be that plants became poisonous as well...especially since God created all to be good and the all seed bearing plants as food.

Sorry guys...there is nothing, absolutely nothing at all in the first eight chapters of the Scriptures that indicate that animals were eaten, prior to God giving the animals to be eaten. And, then He gave all the animals...

...as a matter of fact...explain to me exactly just what Genesis 9 would even mean if they were already eating clean animals as a matter of course? Why would God even be saying this?