The "bless whatever you eat" lie!

[kiwimac]

And yet Jesus was called a 'gutton and drunkard.' Paul makes it quite clear that we either keep the whole of the law or we live under grace.

 

[Elijah674]

I was studying over some passages relevant to this discussion last night.

One thing that stood out to me is the fact that the word for "clean" as applied to the animals that Noah took more of on the ark, the word "tahowr" is used specifically for that which was used in worship of God up until Leviticus 10.

This word "tahowr" is used to describe the animals that Noah took on the ark that were sacrificed, for the gold used in the making of the tabernacle and used on the priests robes (the little bells), the holy anointing oil and the incense, and the place where things were to be sacrificed. As far as I could see, from my admittedly limited understanding of Hebrew, this word was used only in relation of things for worship and for sacrifice.

In Leviticus 10, we see the word used along with the word for "unclean" for the first time, and it is when Aaron's sons offered "strange fire" before the Lord and were killed because of it, and Jehovah instructed Aaron to differentiate between the holy and unholy and the clean and unclean.

The word for "unclean", the Hebrew word "tame'" does not show up in the Scriptures until Leviticus 5, the context of Leviticus 5 being what shall be considered sin and needing a guilt offering. This word is not in the account of Noah at all. I checked this out, because we have a tendency to think of the animals that went on the ark as "clean" and "unclean" but that is not how the Bible says it...rather, the animals that went on the ark were clean, "tahowr" and not clean. I think this is significant...again because up until Leviticus 11, "tahowr" and "tame'" are not used in conjunction of things to eat, but rather things sanctified to God and things unholy and unclean before God.

Just thought I'd throw this in.

Yeah, I figured that the 'badger skin' bad translation that 'i' posted up would give some ammunition for more stuff! Like the wine & the fermented devils brew! If it be a Yes or No, or whatever? one has got to take the chance it seems.

So what does the arm of flesh of Jer. 17:5 come up with for Isa. 65:4's broth of 'abominable things + swine's flesh' or chapter 66 & verse 17's 'mouse + eating swine flesh' & CONSUMED TOGETHER!

Surely a person could locate a commentary to their likeing with one of the many seen from the Rev. 17:1-5 ones??

--Elijah

 

[Nathan]

And yet Jesus was called a 'gutton and drunkard.' Paul makes it quite clear that we either keep the whole of the law or we live under grace.

This is only as it applies to righteousness. Obviously food, whether consumed in the abidance of the law or lawlessly, does not contribute to or take away from our standing in Christ. It never has, it never will. It did not for them back then, and it will not for anyone in the future.

Jesus may have been called that, but thats only what He was called. They called Him a sinner and a blasphemer among other things. But we know He did not do these things. I have no doubt that Jesus lived physically according to His own law. The one given at Mt. Sinai. If we were to study grace, we would see that its the power to change us from what we are; not the ability to allow us to do what ever we want.

 

[handy]

Nathan, just read your last post, and again, I don't find anything to disagree in it.

The issue for me isn't what I view personally as sin or not sinful. For instance, it truly bothers me, bothers me to the point of choosing to sit out communion, if the communion bread is made with yeast. I know of some churches that have no problem just grabbing whatever bread is handy and using it as communion bread. I feel very strongly that it is wrong to have any yeast in the host.

So, I'll just sit out communion if there is yeast in the host. For to me, to eat it, would be sin. If I'm not sure, because some non-leavened breads can still be quite "puffy", I don't worry about it. But, if I'm sure, I'll pass.

But, here is the kicker...I can refuse to eat communion on the basis of there being leaven in the host...but I cannot judge any brother or sister for doing so, condemning them as being in sin for doing so.

You may come to the point of thinking of eating a pepperoni pizza as sinful, but you truly cannot condemn me as sinning and teaching my children to sin if our family eats a pepperoni pizza. Now, if you were to come over, and me, knowing your feelings about pork was to slap a pepperoni pizza in front of you...I'd be sinning.

I did read through your other posts and my thoughts on them more or less go in this direction:

You mentioned this: "While the "law" was a part of the covenant, it was not "The Covenant". Does that make sense? The "Covenant" was a 'agreement' between the people of Israel and God that they would walk in His law. His law predated Mnt. Sinai, therefore it predated "The Covenant".

While the Covenant contains the law, it is not "The Law". When you took vows with your husband, it was all inclusive. You took on his 'name'(I assume). Was his name special just between you and him? No, I dare say he had his name quite a while before you two met. ;)"

And this: "Obviously this time frame dictates that the 'test' they went through was before they had ever entered into a covenant. So we can see that the covenant and the law and even the commands are all separate 'items'. The covenant encompasses all of these, but they do not originate within it, so therefore they cannot terminate with it. If you and your husband divorced, God forbid, would he still have his original name? You, on the other hand, may or may not choose to 'keep' it. But if he remarried, would his new wife not receive the same name, and be apart of the same 'person' who he was with you?"

I'm glad that you used the illustration of a husband and wife here...it's fitting and I'm going to get back to it.

But first, I want to look at how 2 Corinthians 3 applies to what you have to say about the covenant and the law being separate, and the termination of the covenant does not mean the termination of the law. You see, I believe that the New Testament definitely teaches that both old testament law and covenant are no longer in effect.

Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?
For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.
Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away.
But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.
But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 3)


We see that Paul speaks of both covenant and of law here...and reiterates that under the old covenant the law brought death...this is the same thing he told the Romans, but that in the Spirit there is liberty.


I believe that both the covenant and the law is no more...because it was like a marriage was it not...at least Paul compared it to a marriage. But, rather than a divorce, there was a death. And, at death, the covenant ended.


This is exactly what Paul tells the Romans in Chapter 7:


Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.
Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.
For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.
But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.



I don't know how it can be any clearer than this, that we are not under the old covenant or the old law because Christ died. And, as Paul said, we are made to die to the law in the body of Christ, so that we can be joined to another, yes Paul did say "another", that is the resurrected Christ.


To not eat certain meats, or to observe certain days, or to not eat any leavened bread during communion...these are all things that, are good if we are doing them as unto the Lord...but there is no law covering these things.

 

[Nathan]

Yeah, I figured that the 'badger skin' bad translation that 'i' posted up would give some ammunition for more stuff! Like the wine & the fermented devils brew! If it be a Yes or No, or whatever? one has got to take the chance it seems.

So what does the arm of flesh of Jer. 17:5 come up with for Isa. 65:4's broth of 'abominable things + swine's flesh' or chapter 66 & verse 17's 'mouse + eating swine flesh' & CONSUMED TOGETHER!

Surely a person could locate a commentary to their likeing with one of the many seen from the Rev. 17:1-5 ones??

--Elijah

Isaiah is speaking in metaphoric language, both literally and physically.

Isa 65:2-4 I spread out my hands all the day to a rebellious people, who walk in a way that is not good, following their own devices; a people who provoke me to my face continually, sacrificing in gardens and making offerings on bricks; who sit in tombs, and spend the night in secret places; who eat pig's flesh, and broth of tainted meat is in their vessels; who say, "Keep to yourself, do not come near me, for I am too holy for you." These are a smoke in my nostrils, a fire that burns all the day.

Isa 66:17-19 "Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating pig's flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, declares the LORD. "For I know their works and their thoughts, and the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and shall see my glory, and I will set a sign among them. And from them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands far away, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory. And they shall declare my glory among the nations.

It speaks of hypocrites. Those who say one thing, but then do another. The first group does their 'own thing' in the worship of God, yet revel in their "holiness".

The second group says and even does one thing, sanctifying and purifying themselves, but then goes out to do another.

We understand that pigs 'eat whatever'. That is why physically they are unfit to eat. They can contain all sorts of diseases, and not only that they contain a high fat content that is extremely not healthy. This is all in a physical sense. The same physical sense that will be destroyed with fire along with our physical bodies.

However, the point that Isaiah is making is that these people 'consume whatever' they want, doing their own thing. They do not follow after God. The defilement comes from their heart, and shows forth in their works; no matter what they declare from their mouths.

Does it negate the fact that pigs are still not good to eat? No, it does not. The declaration from God still stands as a fact. But the person who has not come into the spiritual realm is not going to understand this fact one iota. And they will not be made perfect, or brought into spiritual perfection, by 'doing' these things in the law. What they will be is the ones spoken of here in Isaiah.

When the spirit of man changes, the outworking of man changes. Its a fact. I am living proof and will testify of it every chance I get. As far as taking in things that are harmful, this became a whole lot more "real" just today.

I work at a water treatment facility, one that treats water for drinking purposes among other things, and we have received reports that radioactive material is being found in drinking water now. So is everyone going or supposed to stop drinking water? Its all around us now, unfortunately. Its eventually going to be in the very vegetables you grow in your own garden. Are we not to eat them? Just because God did not list radioactive material as "clean" or "unclean" does not mean that they will not have an effect on me.

There comes a point when we have to understand what God given common sense is. There also comes a point that we have to submit fully and completely to the leading of the Spirit of Christ in our lives. If we live and dwell in the physical for our understanding of the spiritual, we are setting ourselves up for failure. But if in the spirit, we put to death the things of the flesh, we will find the end leads to eternal life.

Hebrews is correct in the statement it makes.

Hbr 13:8-9 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them.

What does it mean it has not benefited them? Has it really not? Of course it has in the physical realm. The very story told of the 100+ year old women is fact enough that it benefits people to eat foods in regards to the law of God. But what the writer addresses is the fact that they are of NO value in stopping the indulgence's of the flesh, which is the very metaphoric principle Isaiah is setting forth.

 

[handy]

Elijah, sometimes it's hard when writing as opposed to talking face to face to impart a certain tone...so, forgive me if I sound harsh in this, it's not my meaning to...but sometimes I really don't know where you are coming from with your posts. I read both of your responses to me, and must admit that while, I "get" the first one, I have no idea what you are getting at in the second. Sorry.

As for this post:

So we eat rats & drink antifreez? Because it does not 'spiritually' defile us? [But what comes out of the heart does] So what is Christ saying??? He would not even drink vinegar (fermented wine) on His death/bed! (cross) As Peter did not understand his 3 time vision from God, perhaps we best watch how we explain the Word of God to others? Eccl. 3:14 & Heb. 13:8 & 9.

And Christ did what in Mark 7:14-19????
And Mark 7:17's Parable? 'verse 20 'That which commeth out of man, (his heart in other words!) that defileth the man.' (mankind including housewives;))

--Elijah

PS: I wonder how many Christians set an bad example that indeed does shorten the lives of their husband & children that they love?

No one is eating rats or drinking antifreeze here...we are discussing whether or not the old covenants and old laws are in effect, or by the death of Christ, were thus fulfilled and ended.

And I am going to say something that perhaps might sound very prideful...just because Peter didn't understand his vision, doesn't mean that we cannot. No pride here, we have something that Peter didn't have at the time...the "20/20 hindsight" that the Scriptures provide for us...we have the whole counsel of the word, including Paul's very clear teachings that pull together what was probably very confusing for the first Christians, especially those who were Jews prior to becoming Christian.

(We can also remember that Peter was by no means an "infallible" source...after all Paul himself had to rebuke Peter for hypocrisy in regards to the gentiles. Galatians 2:11-21)

Taking the whole counsel of the Scriptures, I do indeed see that while God is indeed the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, how He has worked with sinful mankind is different...but all towards the same conclusion...the eternal life to all who believe and that this eternal life has always, always! come from His eternal grace not by any human's pitiful attempt to keep a Law of death. This is indeed what you yourself share when you share to this discussion Hebrews 13:9 saying "Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For [it is] a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.

 

[Nathan]

I don't know how it can be any clearer than this, that we are not under the old covenant or the old law because Christ died. And, as Paul said, we are made to die to the law in the body of Christ, so that we can be joined to another, yes Paul did say "another", that is the resurrected Christ.


To not eat certain meats, or to observe certain days, or to not eat any leavened bread during communion...these are all things that, are good if we are doing them as unto the Lord...but there is no law covering these things.

I understand what your saying. And I think that we are saying the same thing, but just in different words. But I believe Paul is stating the difference we often times pass up, and that is the difference between the flesh and the spirit.

We are not "under" the old covenant, and we are not "under" the law. But the law of God is inside of us now. Being 'released' from the "letter" has a establishment of being released physically. The letter was physical. The law, the true and eternal law, is spiritual.

We were released physically, but that does not mean that the physical should not come under control of the spiritual. What the "letter" did was bring to realization that the physical could not control the spiritual. And that was because the spiritual was dead. That was the purpose of the 'harshness' regarding the law.

David and the others testified to this. They saw the law, how it was good, how it was life, and how it was truth. But they also saw that the flesh of man could not conform to it apart from God intervening for them.

This is the idea set forth in Romans by Paul. If we look to the law as our guider, we will fail. Why? Because that old lie from the devil will pop back up in our flesh declaring we can understand good from evil. But, if by the spirit we follow the Spirit of Christ, we do understand good from evil and our lives will show the fruit of that.

What we can discern is the fact that the life lived in the Spirit of Christ will NEVER be contrary to the law of God. None of it. So does that mean that the person who eats bacon is not walking according to the Spirit of Christ? No. No more than the person who is a vegetarian, yet has hatred in his heart toward others, is not walking according to the Spirit of Christ.

This is Paul's whole employ in Romans 14. You focus on your relationship with God. But do not think that if He is calling you to leave certain foods that you should not do it. You should. There is nothing wrong with being a vegetarian, or even simply eating in accordance to what is written in the law. This is where I am at. I know I am being called out of my lack of dietary control. But I know that He is leading me because this is not something that I am self imposing on myself from the flesh side, and I know its Him calling me because its not contrary to His law.

 

[handy]

I do believe that we are in agreement Nathan!

 

[jasoncran]

This is Paul's whole employ in Romans 14. You focus on your relationship with God. But do not think that if He is calling you to leave certain foods that you should not do it. You should. There is nothing wrong with being a vegetarian, or even simply eating in accordance to what is written in the law. This is where I am at. I know I am being called out of my lack of dietary control. But I know that He is leading me because this is not something that I am self imposing on myself from the flesh side, and I know its Him calling me because its not contrary to His law.

i'm going through this with secular music and entertainment. Food may be next as we all should eat wisely as he leads. i cant honeslty say that kosher foods will harm ones body, just the opposite!

 

[Nathan]

In regards to the title of the thread, however, I believe it's a very pointed truth. The idea that we 'bless' our food in the first place is a laugh at best and a mockery at worst. The case Paul was putting forth is that God is able to do anything He so chooses, and if He gives us something we should accept it with thankfulness, and not with self imposed righteous judgement.

This does not give way to a person thinking they can say a prayer and make something poisonous good. The only action on the part of the receiver is thankfulness. Which imparts the idea that he/she understands who they are receiving their food from, which then imparts understanding that God is active in their life - even down to the basics of what they take in as nourishment.

Presumption of ability within oneself to do anything but receive from God is a grave error.

 

[Elijah674]

In regards to the title of the thread, however, I believe it's a very pointed truth. The idea that we 'bless' our food in the first place is a laugh at best and a mockery at worst. The case Paul was putting forth is that God is able to do anything He so chooses, and if He gives us something we should accept it with thankfulness, and not with self imposed righteous judgement.

This does not give way to a person thinking they can say a prayer and make something poisonous good. The only action on the part of the receiver is thankfulness. Which imparts the idea that he/she understands who they are receiving their food from, which then imparts understanding that God is active in their life - even down to the basics of what they take in as nourishment.

Presumption of ability within oneself to do anything but receive from God is a grave error.

It is good that finally we see that we 'bless' nothing, huh? We pray & ask the Lord's Blessing even with that being according to His will!

But what is 'presumption' that you speak of? (Psalms 19:13) And our prayer to bless??? We even see prayers are not even heard unless certain [CONDITIONS] are met.

Who answers these ones prayers of Matt. 7:22-23 then? We surely can conclude that the Rev. 3:9 synagogue of satan has been 'allowed' power as seen in Matt. 4:9! (at least Christ did not say that that was not true!)

And the verse of Isa. 59:2 'But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, THAT HE WILL NOT HEAR.' Now, who believes that this is true??? And that verse of 1 John 3:4, that is on the New Covenant side of the cross of Christ, and this Inspiration is defining what sin [still is], huh! Surely not the above Matt. 7:22-23 ones, huh?? But we can be sure that everything that God has GOOD, satan has a look alike counterfiet!

Who 'only believes' this? These Rev. 17:1-5 & Matt. 7 Broadway ones talk of FAITH, but their FAITH DOES NOT BELIEVE THIS! So, who is it that they are getting their prayers answered by? It should have 'us' stop & take inventory to what we put into the 'body', but that is only a very small part of it.

And satan even quoted the promised Words of Christ to Himself in Matt. 4:6 & Ps. 91:11. But the some 'faith' ones (without /obedient/works) do not even care enough to try to understand that Christ quoted back to satan from the ETERNAL COVENANT CONDITION from the O.T. Whatever, huh? Luke 16:31

And these faith/less ones of Rev. 16:13-14 'working miracles'?? You know? People don't care what Christ says or has written. We will just BELIEVE (as satan does) and worship as we want to do! And when they see the devils real miracles happening?? what then? (they already ditch Christ's Eternal required Covenant Heb. 13:20 & the 1 John 3:4 verse that Documents that the Law is still THERE! See Rev. 11:18-19!)

Most will flock to the place in star/struck'Disobedient FAITH' unless they are grounded in the truth. What the miracle working 'gal's' (or guy's) actually teach mean nothing if God will not hear ones prayer. And the above verses? They mean absolutely nothing to these ones either. And to deceive the very elect 'if it were possible'??

Hey, this is not meant to be any personal posting! But is a part of one that I did years back that is still very up to date!;)

--Elijah

 

[theLords]

In regards to the title of the thread, however, I believe it's a very pointed truth. The idea that we 'bless' our food in the first place is a laugh at best and a mockery at worst. The case Paul was putting forth is that God is able to do anything He so chooses, and if He gives us something we should accept it with thankfulness, and not with self imposed righteous judgement.

This does not give way to a person thinking they can say a prayer and make something poisonous good. The only action on the part of the receiver is thankfulness. Which imparts the idea that he/she understands who they are receiving their food from, which then imparts understanding that God is active in their life - even down to the basics of what they take in as nourishment.

Presumption of ability within oneself to do anything but receive from God is a grave error.

How come? I always ask the Lord to cleanse my food from all impurities because I don't won't food poisoning! It's worked. It's been a safeguard to me. I didn't know I was doing something wrong... :ohwell

 

[Elijah674]

How come? I always ask the Lord to cleanse my food from all impurities because I don't won't food poisoning! It's worked. It's been a safeguard to me. I didn't know I was doing something wrong... :ohwell

Read the post again?? Did it say that we should not ASK??? It is strange how we read things differently, huh?;)

Curious as to what the Word of Psalm's 19:13's 'presumption' means to you? And the 'Great Transgression'??? Please take time to answer!

--Elijah

PS: Let me just post the Psalms 19:13 verse & highlight.

[13] Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: [then] shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.

 

[Nathan]

How come? I always ask the Lord to cleanse my food from all impurities because I don't won't food poisoning! It's worked. It's been a safeguard to me. I didn't know I was doing something wrong... :ohwell

Elijah beat me too it.;). I believe it is good to ask a blessing. But if your going to do that, would you not agree it needs to be done in faith? I bet growing up my mother did this a lot, and as you say "it worked". Personally, it's just a matter of words, but I would like to say He worked.

It's just all to often that we do something, or say something, "in faith" based upon our own interpretation of it. And this is 'ok' up to the point of actually knowing what is right and wrong. That is why Paul says what he does about faith and food and sin.

To me it's just like my children. When they ask for something I let them know an answer to their request. But if they presumptuously keep asking, regardless of what I have told them before, then it brings me to a point of needing to discipline them.

So the idea is that as we grow in Christ, which is through our training of discernment between right and wrong(Heb 5:14), then we cannot 'presumptuously' ask for something when we know full well that He does not want us to have it. Many times we stop with the obvious 'sins', and never go beyond that into full maturity.

But this may be the case for many. There are some 'adults' that just have not come to a point of maturity in their physical life. And I am sure the same holds true for the spiritual life of some. But the bottom line of it all is obedience, and that is the WHOLE message of the Gospel for ALL; even Christ.

Side note: no 'personal' stuff taken friend.;)

 

[theLords]

Elijah beat me too it.;). I believe it is good to ask a blessing. But if your going to do that, would you not agree it needs to be done in faith? I bet growing up my mother did this a lot, and as you say "it worked". Personally, it's just a matter of words, but I would like to say He worked.

It's just all to often that we do something, or say something, "in faith" based upon our own interpretation of it. And this is 'ok' up to the point of actually knowing what is right and wrong. That is why Paul says what he does about faith and food and sin.

To me it's just like my children. When they ask for something I let them know an answer to their request. But if they presumptuously keep asking, regardless of what I have told them before, then it brings me to a point of needing to discipline them.

So the idea is that as we grow in Christ, which is through our training of discernment between right and wrong(Heb 5:14), then we cannot 'presumptuously' ask for something when we know full well that He does not want us to have it. Many times we stop with the obvious 'sins', and never go beyond that into full maturity.

But this may be the case for many. There are some 'adults' that just have not come to a point of maturity in their physical life. And I am sure the same holds true for the spiritual life of some. But the bottom line of it all is obedience, and that is the WHOLE message of the Gospel for ALL; even Christ.

Side note: no 'personal' stuff taken friend.;)

Oh, so you're referring to the heart condition! Gotcha, thank you, Elijah and Nathan. I'm going to keep praying for cleansing and blessings of my food, and praising God that "He is working." :D

 

[Godmanseed]

Yes in the Old testament God gave restriction on what they could or could not eat. Only certain plants, animals, and insects were allowed to be consumed (kosher) and deemed holy. Even the foods they ate pointed to Christ and only those foods were allowed. Food, meat, and drink offerings were given to God not just to say thanks for the food, but also to say thanks for not wiping us out for our sins even though we haven't been saved yet. When Jesus made His sacrifice God said in Act 10:15 do not call what I have cleansed unclean. The verse was specifically meant for food. You don't have to bless food because it was blessed with the sacrifice of Jesus, but we should still give him thanks for blessing our food (to please Him). Mathew 5:11 It's not what goes into a mans mouth that defiles him but what comes out that makes him unclean