The "bless whatever you eat" lie!

[Elijah674]

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?

Hi, you seem like a sincere one. Here is a post from another sit, I think that it will be understood by you?

But regardless, in heaven there will NO 'presumptive' swine eaters from earth God did document. Isa. 66:15-17

And your 'God gave ALL animals for food' at the start is flawed. (or you will supply me the verse, right? ;))

--Elijah

 

[Hitch]

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?

I reckon a good case can be made that such permission was implicit in the slaughter of the first lamb. The eating of the sacrifice continues to this day. So as that first lamb typifies the Last , I think it is reasonable assumption.

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.

'Only" ? That is assumption. We know it was codified under Moses ,we do not know every law that was in place the day before.

 

[Elijah674]

Hi, you seem like a sincere one. Here is a post from another sit, I think that it will be understood by you?

But regardless, in heaven there will NO 'presumptive' swine eaters from earth God did document. Isa. 66:15-17

And your 'God gave ALL animals for food' at the start is flawed. (or you will supply me the verse, right? ;))

--Elijah

(I will get back with the post, I lost it out of my browser)

OK: Me again!
God At The First Did Visit The Gentiles.
By: ____ Gender: M Age: 49 on Apr 23, 2010 at 2:19 PM

This being what it is, a Biblical and Theological Issues discussion forum, it seems relevant enough. We learn a lot more through discussion and checking up on one another (including ourselves) than from the one man show most get in today's street corner building assemblies.

Where else are you going to learn about all these Gentiles?

OK: Elijah here. AAA still has the Subject going which 'i' agree with (almost) completely. Gods creation were ONE [MANKIND] in LANGUAGE + SPEECH. [RACE is said to be that of the IMAGE OF GOD!] Gen. 10:32 + Gen. 11:1 (and image was before sin & all might agree with that?)

What bothers me is ones questioning God! Such as Gen. 3 & DEATH. If one does not believe God, how can anyone go further on in Truth?? The point was brought up of translations, + all kinds of 'doubting' word translations with men who were not inspired, yet were surely sincere Christians? The question mark is for that purpose! They were surely all leaning towards their belief just like UNINSPIRED ones of today are doing. (me, you or anyone else)

AAA, (and he seems like a fine person?) brings up the [Truthful] thought that in Lev. 11 [GOD SEPARATED] the clean from the unclean. Then he takes you to where badgers skin is used by mans translation in a number of verses in Gods Word. (K.J.)

I gave a posting of what I believe was the problem from another's 'pen' saying that GOAT was the clean animal that perhaps should have been used in word translation? Then here comes the 2 Cor. 4:2 remark (bottom/line) that who is this guy that questions the translators of the Word of God that cannot tell the difference between a Bagger and a Goat??

That green remark above might sound kind of cute? (but is vain to me) Well... my wife tells [me] that that word 'well' is a mighty deep subject for [shallow minded men!]??

SO: ... Instead of the post of another who could also be called the Jer. 17:5 arm of flesh?? let me tell you what 'i' myself will NEVER DISCARD! GOD said.. 'FOR I AM THE LORD, I CHANGE NOT..' Mal. 3:6 God HOLY SPIRIT INSPIRED in what is called the N.T... 'JESUS CHRIST, THE SAME YESTERDAY, AND TODAY, AND FOREVER. [BE NOT CARRIED ABOUT WITH DIVERS AND STRANGE DOCTRINES] For it is a [GOOD THING THAT THE HEART BE ESTABLISHED WITH GRACE]; ..'

Badgers Skin?? I personally believe that satan & his fallen angels had a 'ball' with both 'fermented' wine & with that translation + Gen. 3 lies of theirs.

And surely the 'CHURCH' (Acts 7:37-39) in the wilderness with Christ INSIDE at times were taught this Truth! And even in the N.T. the Holy Spirit was to bring ALL THING TO THESE [BELIEVERS] REMEMBRANCE. And in Acts 10 Peter had a DIRECT VISION for GOD where he stated NOT SO LORD.. to a direct COMMAND, and the [MATURE] REASON [[WAS]] THAT HE HAD NEVER [EATEN ANYTHING COMMON OR UNCLEAN] BECAUSE GOD SAID NOT TO! ! (badger!)

AGAIN: Three TIMES GOD GAVE him the Vision!! PETER was [[[SETTLED]]] IN THE TRUTH that GOD NEVER VIOLATED HIS WORD!! (*Col. 1:23 N.T.)

So what was the problem??? It is 'man translation' of what the Holy Spirit was SAYING! [[THREE TIMES]] But, Peter [[[KNEW]]] that it was his misunderstanding of what God was telling him that was the problem! (which the next few verses document)
And even then we have 'c'hristian folks tell us that God cleansed the 'badger', 'swine', +! .. and just ask a presumptuous blessing on arsenic before drinking it, and all is well. And that man has a separate living thinking SOUL & would go to heaven???!!

There has been a lot of garbage posted on Gen. 3:1-5 by [mankind +], but until they can BELIEVE GOD DOES NOT CHANGE, but STANDS BY THEIR WORD, [mankind] will just be a memory that fadeth away eternally before long! Obad. 1:16

 

[handy]

Elijah, I already gave the text, but I realize that this is a long thread with long posts so here it is again:

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."


Regarding the prophecy of Isaiah's...I believe this passage to be speaking of the time of Christ's final judgment...after His death on the cross...the context certainly seems to support that. So, I believe that what is key here is that Isaiah is addressing those who would be self-righteous..."those who sanctify and purify themselves"...not those sanctified and purified by Christ. As Isaiah is addressing the Jews here, long before the New Covenant was ushered in, he used a visual that was hard to ignore, people who sanctify and purify themselves, but follow a swine eater...powerful image...but not really germane to whether or not all animals were given as food prior to the Law of Moses, nor under the New Covenant.

 

[handy]

I reckon a good case can be made that such permission was implicit in the slaughter of the first lamb. The eating of the sacrifice continues to this day. So as that first lamb typifies the Last , I think it is reasonable assumption.

That is a good point...if you are considering communion as the "consumption" of the Lamb...but, then I'd have to point out that the elements of communion contain no animal product...;)

'Only" ? That is assumption. We know it was codified under Moses ,we do not know every law that was in place the day before.

You mistake my meaning...as a matter of fact, I agree wholly, we don't know the laws that was in place before Moses...my meaning with the "only" was that it is "only" after Moses that we clearly see eating "unclean" animals forbidden. This is why, since the Scriptures tell us that all animals were given for food after the ark, and no mention of only "clean" animals to be eaten...and there are no codified laws prior to Moses about it...we shouldn't jump to "fill the gap" with the idea that "well...gee...when God said, all, He really meant only the "clean" ones, which must have been being eaten all along...so He brought this up because..."



Seriously, I go back to my previous point...if the Jews knew all along that only "clean" animals were for food...and were eating only "clean" animals since Cain and Abel...why then would God "give" them what they had all along after disembarking from the ark...and why the stress "they shall be "unclean" to you" in the first passage we have regarding eating "clean" versus "unclean" animals?

 

[Nathan]

I think the obvious fact in and of itself that there is not much detail about the early life of the patriarchs of faith lends itself to understanding that we have no clue how they ate. (except for the occasional verse here and there).

But what we do know is that they worshiped the God that gave the "law" to Israel at Mnt. Sinai. So here is God, giving a "formal" declaration of who He is to a specific group of people. We associate the "covenant" with the law directly. Why, I do not know. God did not change who He was before them, or after them.

So it seems to me, that apart from the ceremonial things that pointed to Christ, that the rest of the "law" is just that; a declaration of what God desires for His creation. You might notice that Paul refers to the "law" as a giving of, not a covenant of, in Romans 9. In fact, Paul differentiates between the two in the same verse. But somehow we have along the way associated the words of God at Mnt.Sinai as words just meant for a specific group of people at a specific time period in history.

I am thinking along the same lines as Theo. And I really 'relate' to the idea that about the "new covenant" as posted earlier in the thread. Righteousness does not come from keeping the "law", but does it make what God said 'obsolete'? I do not think so. But I think that what we do find is we build a wall in place of the one Christ tore down in regards to what God has spoken about concerning issues of mere existence while on this earth.

Because in all reality thats what it all "boils" down too. That is what we can all eat knowing full well that it is "clean". And that is that this world is temporary. Nothing in it will last, and the Spiritual is where reality exists. There is wisdom behind the truth expressed in the "clean and unclean" foods. But as always, the Spiritual is always first, then the flesh follows along. But if it is attempted the other way it will always end in udder failure and presumptuous sin - even of those who follow the law to a "T".

 

[handy]

Because this thread has been so busy, I did want to repeat a text I shared earlier...

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)

 

[Hitch]

That is a good point...if you are considering communion as the "consumption" of the Lamb...but, then I'd have to point out that the elements of communion contain no animal product...;)

We know the sacrifices were consumed by the Levites, we also know that Jesus said;
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Even though we dont literalize this the point remains.

You mistake my meaning...as a matter of fact, I agree wholly, we don't know the laws that was in place before Moses...my meaning with the "only" was that it is "only" after Moses that we clearly see eating "unclean" animals forbidden. This is why, since the Scriptures tell us that all animals were given for food after the ark, and no mention of only "clean" animals to be eaten...and there are no codified laws prior to Moses about it...we shouldn't jump to "fill the gap" with the idea that "well...gee...when God said, all, He really meant only the "clean" ones, which must have been being eaten all along...so He brought this up because..."

I think that is as strongly implied as that they were to be sacrificed, I havent read about it recently but I cant recall any specific mention of sacrificing the clean, correct me if Im mistaken.

Seriously, I go back to my previous point...if the Jews knew all along that only "clean" animals were for food...and were eating only "clean" animals since Cain and Abel...why then would God "give" them what they had all along after disembarking from the ark...and why the stress "they shall be "unclean" to you" in the first passage we have regarding eating "clean" versus "unclean" animals?

When Cain committed the fratricide God took extraordinary measures to insure that the code of justice already in place was not applied to him. Does this mean that God was needlessly redundant in writing with His own hand 'Thou shall not kill' ?

 

[precepts]

Wow! If, only, I had a life!

 

[Theofilus]

As for the plants...who is to say that there were toxic plants back then...again, more assumptions.

You are also assuming here. You are assuming that when the Bible says that "it was all very good", that necessarily meant "good to eat". Although the toxins in many plants and animals may be bad for us, they are good for the plant or animal in question. For example, the Greenland shark has no kidneys. The toxins from the blood go into it's flesh instead, making it poisonous for humans to eat unprocessed. It's not bad for the shark, though, they can live up to 200 years. So, the shark is a good creation, but it was not intended for human consumption. Pork rinds may not kill you instantly, but they are very bad for your health. I don't see how the pig could live without them though. Various chemicals found in some plants make them toxic to us, but they do some good for the plant. Everything God created is good for the purpose for which it was created, but not everything was created to be food.

 

[Theofilus]

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.

Words often change their meaning over time. For example, there is a village named Intercourse, Pennsylvania. It was founded in the mid 18th century, and adopted it's current name in 1814. When you mention the word intercourse today, people immediately think of sex but, back in the early 19th century, intercourse could mean fellowship, communication or business dealings. When we see that word, we must keep in mind when and in what context it was used, to get the propper meaning. The people who gave the town that name didn't have anything sexual in mind. If someone gave a place that name today, it would be a diffrent matter, since the word's meaning has changed.

Perhapse the words translated as clean and unclean once did refer only to sacrifices, but by the time Moses wrote Genesis, it had taken on the meaning of referring to food as well, and we must keep in mind that Moses used the every day language of his time, not some meanings that had been dead for a thousand years. So, when Moses writes the words clean and unclean, including in the first chapters of Genesis, he was referring to food, just as people today who use the word intercourse are talking about sex, not fellowship.

In othe words, we must understand these words as meaning what the people of Moses' time would have understood them to mean, not what we think they may have meant a thousand years earlier.

 

[handy]

Nathan, your post brings up some thoughts...but I don't think I really have time tonight to flesh them out properly...hopefully I can get back to it tomorrow. But, as a preliminary response, I think of Hebrews 9:19 "For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people saying 'This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.'"

The Old Covenant preceded the Law, but the Law was intrinsically tied to it which is why if one is seeking to please God by following the Law, one is going to have to keep the entire law, something we all know is impossible.

Which brings me to the point I do want to address in the time I have left tonight before I need to get into the kitchen and start dinner....

Well two points, one a bit quick: Hitch you said, "I think that is as strongly implied as that they were to be sacrificed, I havent read about it recently but I cant recall any specific mention of sacrificing the clean, correct me if Im mistaken."

It's Genesis 8:20 which specifically states that the "clean" animals were sacrificed.

Hitch, you also brought up Cain and the measures that God took so that he would not face being killed and how this would relate to "Thou shalt not kill"...

Somewhere in the dim past of this thread I had responded about the 10 Commandments, and whether or not they are just as valid (in a covenant/Law sense) as they were back then...

When Christ came with a New Covenant, which we are now under, He also gave Commandments that go with it...the "Royal Law" as it is often called which is, of course:

"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

The thing about the 10 Commandments is that you cannot violate any of them without violating the First or the Second "Royal Law". In all the talk about assumptions, I'll freely admit to always assuming that the "Royal Law" is eternal. It has always been and always will be.

When folks try to differentiate between the Law of Moses and what we should abide by today and what does not apply to us today...we can pretty much apply the Royal Law and see that the first three commandments are covered by "Love the Lord you God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind, and the last seven are covered by "Love your neighbor as yourself." (The Sabbath is very specialized under this...but that's a whole different thread.)

Dietary laws weren't part of the 10 Commandments, nor are they really covered under the royal law as well. I sincerely believe they were only for the time of Moses until the New Covenant.


Theo...just saw your latest post...I again refer back to Leviticus 11, where God takes great care to explain to the people of Israel that they could only eat certain animals...He gave them criteria in which to judge whether or not an animal was "clean" to eat or not "clean"...this does not suggest that this was just very common knowledge.

So, I agree with you that the words "clean" and "unclean" came to be understood as pertaining to diet with Moses, not a thousand years earlier.

Which was my point all along! That these dietary laws were for a specific time and purpose, not something akin to the Royal Law which is for all time. And, being for a specific time and purpose, that time and purpose was fulfilled when the Old Covenant passed away and the New Covenant was ushered in.

I believe that God inspired Moses to make sure the events in Genesis were accurately written down...and that Moses accurately wrote that all plants were given for food and that animals were not given for food until after Noah disembarked from the ark, and then that all animals were given for food. Therefore, the only reason for "clean" animals prior to them getting off of the ark would be for sacrifices. Even if, by the time Moses wrote the words, people had began to think of animals in the sense of being "clean" to eat or "unclean" and therefore not to eat...this does not apply to the previous generations. Adam, Cain, Able, Seth, all the way to Noah and even onward to Abraham and others would not think of "clean" except in terms of sacrifice. The word for "unclean" doesn't show up in the bible at all until Leviticus.

This post could most likely use some serious editing but the clock and my kids are telling me to get off this PC and get some dinner made! Great discussion guys!

 

[Nathan]

Here is a thought I contemplated this morning while reading, then I am going to respond to you posts later Handy.

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. ;)

We see a 'snap shot' that speaks volumes to this fact about God.

Exd 16:1 They set out from Elim, and all the congregation of the people of Israel came to the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had departed from the land of Egypt.

Notice the time frame we are talking about here.

Exd 16:11-12 And the LORD said to Moses, "I have heard the grumbling of the people of Israel. Say to them, 'At twilight you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread. Then you shall know that I am the LORD your God.'"

So we all know the story, no need in pasting it all here, but needless to say there was a certain 'rule' that they had to do. Rest on the Sabbath from going out and getting food.

Exd 16:25-30 Moses said, "Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the LORD; today you will not find it in the field. Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, which is a Sabbath, there will be none." On the seventh day some of the people went out to gather, but they found none.

And the LORD said to Moses, "How long will you refuse to keep my commandments and my laws? See! The LORD has given you the Sabbath; therefore on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Remain each of you in his place; let no one go out of his place on the seventh day." So the people rested on the seventh day.

Here we see a clear designation of 'commandments' and 'laws'. But in both cases we see that they are God's. Not anyone else. But as it pertains to "The Covenant", they predated that "Covenant" between God and Israel. This was a simple 'test'(as stated in verse 4 of the same chapter) to see if they would walk in His law or not.

Then in chapter 18 we see something else interesting. Before the "law" was given about sacrifices, we see Jethro offering sacrifices. Interesting. But now we get to the point where we understand the timing of all of this.

Exd 19:1-2 On the third new moon after the people of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on that day they came into the wilderness of Sinai. They set out from Rephidim and came into the wilderness of Sinai, and they encamped in the wilderness. There Israel encamped before the mountain,

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?

What this all has to do with 'food' is that the 'food laws' were not just specific to Israel in nature. They are God's design for humans. Its true what Jesus says that they cannot defile you. However, that does not negate the fact that they are His declaration of what should and should not be eaten for your benefit. This was the whole point that Jesus was stating about the Sabbath to those who looked at it as just a "law". It runs so much deeper than that, ALL the 'laws' run so much deeper than what we care to imagine today.

 

[Tindru]

Because this thread has been so busy, I did want to repeat a text I shared earlier...

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)

My Dad always told us that when we pray over what we eat not only are we telling God we apprciate what he has given us but God will bless that food so that it is better for us. And I know that is true because I have proved to myself that it is when I don't pray over my food it sometimes makes my tummy upset.

 

[Nathan]

After going back over it, I think I addressed your posts with my last post Handy. But let me know if there is something I did not cover.

In the end, here is the way I see it. Physical food is not going to 'defile' me. It is physical, my body is physical, and both will burn with fire in the end. However, its a known fact that by consuming things that are contrary to the law does indeed put additional stress on the body. God did not put in place food laws to limit ones enjoying of food.

But some would say "I LOVE bacon", and by deeming it 'unlawful' it limits my enjoyment. To that I would say yes, bacon is VERY appealing, but so is a lot of other things. A nice house, a nice car, (for men)beautiful women, sometimes lying, sometimes stealing, etc. The list can go on and on. The simple fact is we would never say, "oh, I know beautiful women are nice...I think I will just have me a little of that". Neither would we say the same about a lie - even though we actually do sometimes.

But the fact is that we do not truly consider food in the nature of its role in impacting our bodies that we HAVE to live in while on this earth. It does effect them, tremendously. Most diseases today are linked to food choices we make. We can claim its "hereditary" all we want, and to an extent it just might be because for generations now we have over and over 'down played' the role food plays in our lives. So now we are 'reaping' the consequences that those before us have 'sown'.

The number one killer in America(the land of the most 'unlawful' diets) is heart disease. Above and beyond all things. This is directly related to what you eat and how you live. We have come to a point in trying to say some are more "prone" to it than others, but we are only kidding ourselves. It just does not seem that any of God's laws regarding food are restrictive to the point of having to be cumbersome. You know what, if I was to go eat dinner with friends and they offered me something that is contrary to the dietary laws given, I would eat it and be thankful. I have no doubt that my body can handle it, and that God can bless it.

But I will NOT presumptuously sit back and take a straw to a gallon of antifreeze and think that God will miraculously heal me. Theres a little thing called common sense and Godly wisdom. I understand that the spiritual is spiritual and the physical is physical. I know this for a definite. No one will change my mind on this. But I know God has given the dietary laws for a benefit to me for the time that I am spending in this body, and they are good for me. This I know because the Bible tells me so.

 

[handy]

After going back over it, I think I addressed your posts with my last post Handy. But let me know if there is something I did not cover.

In the end, here is the way I see it. Physical food is not going to 'defile' me. It is physical, my body is physical, and both will burn with fire in the end. However, its a known fact that by consuming things that are contrary to the law does indeed put additional stress on the body. God did not put in place food laws to limit ones enjoying of food.

But some would say "I LOVE bacon", and by deeming it 'unlawful' it limits my enjoyment. To that I would say yes, bacon is VERY appealing, but so is a lot of other things. A nice house, a nice car, (for men)beautiful women, sometimes lying, sometimes stealing, etc. The list can go on and on. The simple fact is we would never say, "oh, I know beautiful women are nice...I think I will just have me a little of that". Neither would we say the same about a lie - even though we actually do sometimes.

But the fact is that we do not truly consider food in the nature of its role in impacting our bodies that we HAVE to live in while on this earth. It does effect them, tremendously. Most diseases today are linked to food choices we make. We can claim its "hereditary" all we want, and to an extent it just might be because for generations now we have over and over 'down played' the role food plays in our lives. So now we are 'reaping' the consequences that those before us have 'sown'.

The number one killer in America(the land of the most 'unlawful' diets) is heart disease. Above and beyond all things. This is directly related to what you eat and how you live. We have come to a point in trying to say some are more "prone" to it than others, but we are only kidding ourselves. It just does not seem that any of God's laws regarding food are restrictive to the point of having to be cumbersome. You know what, if I was to go eat dinner with friends and they offered me something that is contrary to the dietary laws given, I would eat it and be thankful. I have no doubt that my body can handle it, and that God can bless it.

But I will NOT presumptuously sit back and take a straw to a gallon of antifreeze and think that God will miraculously heal me. Theres a little thing called common sense and Godly wisdom. I understand that the spiritual is spiritual and the physical is physical. I know this for a definite. No one will change my mind on this. But I know God has given the dietary laws for a benefit to me for the time that I am spending in this body, and they are good for me. This I know because the Bible tells me so.

Just logging in and catching up on the thread...Nathan, I'll be putting more thought into your other posts, but as for this one...I agree 100%. There is nothing about it that I truly disagree with and I believe it shows the proper perspective we should have about food...that it's in the realm of "everything is lawful, but not everything is profitable". One thing you may have already addressed (forgive me if you have, I'm responding pretty "off the cuff" right now) it is not sin to eat a pepperoni and olive pizza (which would violate OT dietary laws) but one shouldn't consider such a food as "healthy" and eat it all the time.

 

[handy]

You are also assuming here. You are assuming that when the Bible says that "it was all very good", that necessarily meant "good to eat". Although the toxins in many plants and animals may be bad for us, they are good for the plant or animal in question. For example, the Greenland shark has no kidneys. The toxins from the blood go into it's flesh instead, making it poisonous for humans to eat unprocessed. It's not bad for the shark, though, they can live up to 200 years. So, the shark is a good creation, but it was not intended for human consumption. Pork rinds may not kill you instantly, but they are very bad for your health. I don't see how the pig could live without them though. Various chemicals found in some plants make them toxic to us, but they do some good for the plant. Everything God created is good for the purpose for which it was created, but not everything was created to be food.

The fact is, when it comes to things in the ancient Hebrew world, anything that isn't written within the Scriptures of necessity become assumption.

So, while I agree that pigs and sharks were not created for human consumption, I still go back to what the Scriptures tell us: That God gave all the seed bearing plants and trees for food for all beasts and humans...and that, after Noah and the rest got off the ark, God gave all the animals for food as well. This is specifically what the Scriptures say.

Perhaps it's my Calvinist background rearing up...when I was going to the Calvinist church they spent a lot, and I do mean a LOT, of time going into very long, convoluted explanations as to why when God said ALL, He didn't mean all, but rather only some.

Unless there is compelling Scriptural reason to believe that God didn't give all the seed-bearing plants and trees as food for all the animals and humans, and that He didn't give all the animals as food to Noah, et al. I'll believe that when the Scriptures say all, it means all.

Which is exactly what this thread is about...does the Law of Moses supersede both earlier and later revelations of God and therefore apply to us today or not.

 

[Nathan]

Just logging in and catching up on the thread...Nathan, I'll be putting more thought into your other posts, but as for this one...I agree 100%. There is nothing about it that I truly disagree with and I believe it shows the proper perspective we should have about food...that it's in the realm of "everything is lawful, but not everything is profitable". One thing you may have already addressed (forgive me if you have, I'm responding pretty "off the cuff" right now) it is not sin to eat a pepperoni and olive pizza (which would violate OT dietary laws) but one shouldn't consider such a food as "healthy" and eat it all the time.

This is the interesting part as I see it. It brings up the issue of sin. So is it sinful or not has to be based on something, right? Well, the way I see it is that I may or may not choose to eat it. But if I choose to eat it when I am being directly called not to eat it then I would be sinning.

What we do is try to compartmentalize "sin". We base it off of something in relationship to another. For instance, I could say that it depended on the situation at hand whether or not I would eat it. If I had a choice then "I should not choose to eat it". Or if it was put in front of me "I should not question it and eat it".

But when we do that, which we do all the time, we are compartmentalizing sin. But for me this is where it all ends up. There was a time when I did not understand just what my 'body' was. There was a time when I did not understand, or care to, what certain things did to my body. But the older I become, and the more mature in the Spirit I become, there is more wisdom and understanding being given to me. I now have the responsibility to use this 'faith'. (Faith come by hearing, hearing comes from God).

So the more I understand about Christ, the more I understand about God. And I understand that He is the same; yesterday, today, and forever. I realize that it was His law, and it is still His law. But I understand that the law is not how I earn anything, nor how I keep anything. But it is a declaration of His love for us, written down in common words for our understanding. Some people like to call it an "instruction manual" for our time here on earth.

His desire is that we do not physically consume anything into our bodies that would harm us. Is a pepperoni pizza going to do that? I don't know. Seriously. Now He states that we should not eat swine. So I am going to say that I will not sit down to eat pepperoni pizza without thinking about that fact. But at the same time I am not going to scrutinize every step I take and every piece of food that enters my mouth in fear of punishment from God.

I will walk as a wise man, observing what I do to see whether or not it is in step with God. But I could spend all my time focused on the fear factor, or on the liberty factor. I choose the liberty factor because it allows me to walk in love toward my fellow man. When we walk in the fear factor, we will quickly find ourselves in the same situation that they did back then; judging others based upon what they saw them doing.

So the pizza. I do not purposefully choose to eat pork. But I am not going to spend all my time trying not to either. Here is where I draw the line. And some may say that its on an "individual basis", mistranslating what Paul speaks about in Romans. The closer we draw to Him in the faith He has given us, the closer we become one with Him. If we dwell in the 'physical' realm, thinking that we will conform our spiritual life through it, we have missed the point.

But, in our focus on the Spiritual life we will find that our physical life will follow suit. And if it is not, then its a good indication that there is something wrong. Yes, we should have control over the physical life. And that control is supposed to be in every aspect, even our food. Some say this is a complicated issue, some say that its a rather straight forward issue. I fall in between personally. I see the way Paul states it as the truth. What happens is we take it too far one way or the other.

God stated that pigs are not food for us to eat. Therefore, I am going to choose to decide He knows best about whats good for the body He created. But I am not going to make up a whole bunch of little "laws" to govern all aspects of this truth from God. I hope I am not coming across as finding 'loopholes' to jump through trying to please both sides. Even though there are going to be some on here that think I am. I am not. I just have an understanding of it in regards to Paul's understanding and will stand firm in that faith.

The more I grow in this faith, the more I am amazed at what I 'instinctively' have grown apart from. I have grown apart from eating certain things, not out of fear, nor out of self will, but out of a simple distaste that comes from within. And the same is true with a lot of other areas of my life. Food is but one small portion. This is true peace for me. When I can see the fruit of God being born from myself, without any self effort, truly and surely this is God's signature in my life. That is rock solid faith that no one will ever be able to take away from me no matter what happens. And I know that it comes only from Him.

 

[handy]

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.

 

[Elijah674]

Because this thread has been so busy, I did want to repeat a text I shared earlier...

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)

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?