Winds! Forget the Clean & Unclean, huh?

[Elijah674]

--Elijah here:
Before the flood we see clean & un/clean creatures mentioned. But here is a new 'wind' that satan has on the scene of today! (yeah, 'i' know that most do not even hear about God's first requirements!)
----------------

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? (who knows??)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.) In the building of the Lord's Sanctuary.

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 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 That is 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 all that we need to do is 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

 

[Nathan]

Ok. So it has taken me a while to digest what you are talking about here. I am going to assume that it was originally on another forum and translated here. So with that in mind I can only think about what the subject matter is. I can have no real understanding of the original discussion that took place.

But it seems that what you are getting at is that the idea of 'clean' and 'unclean' animals were before the 'law of moses' and therefore transcend the law that was placed into the side of the ark, not the interior. So it seems that your post is making mention that it is disobedience to eat those things that are deemed 'unclean'. Am I wrong? Is that or is it not your intention?

If it is, I am just curious how you deal with Paul making the statement;

Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.

He said very pointedly and directly that he knew AND was persuaded in the Lord that nothing was unclean in itself, but if those who think its unclean then its unclean, BUT only for them. Which, by that statement would indicate that if you, Elijah674, believe it is unclean, then it is indeed unclean for you. But in context it would be that you should not be telling another child of God that it is unclean. For in doing so, you are passing judgement.

Or, are you just simply stating that for you it is unclean, and that let every one else judge for himself whether he stands rightly before the Lord? It does not seem like that is what you are saying, however. It really resembles the idea that because they were pre-flood statutes, then they are therefore "eternal" statutes, and those who do not abide by them are in error.

It also seems to fly in the face of the warning Paul gave to Timothy;

1Ti 4:1-5 "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer."

I can say that I fully believe the little squirrels running around in my yard were indeed created by God. No man or devil created them. God created them. Therefore, should they not be eaten with thanksgiving if God so chooses to give them to me? I am just trying to follow your train of thought here. It does not seem to line up with the entirety of the Bible, but only focuses on a part of it.

 

[Elijah674]

Ok. So it has taken me a while to digest what you are talking about here. I am going to assume that it was originally on another forum and translated here. So with that in mind I can only think about what the subject matter is. I can have no real understanding of the original discussion that took place.

But it seems that what you are getting at is that the idea of 'clean' and 'unclean' animals were before the 'law of moses' and therefore transcend the law that was placed into the side of the ark, not the interior. So it seems that your post is making mention that it is disobedience to eat those things that are deemed 'unclean'. Am I wrong? Is that or is it not your intention?

If it is, I am just curious how you deal with Paul making the statement;

Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.

He said very pointedly and directly that he knew AND was persuaded in the Lord that nothing was unclean in itself, but if those who think its unclean then its unclean, BUT only for them. Which, by that statement would indicate that if you, Elijah674, believe it is unclean, then it is indeed unclean for you. But in context it would be that you should not be telling another child of God that it is unclean. For in doing so, you are passing judgement.

Or, are you just simply stating that for you it is unclean, and that let every one else judge for himself whether he stands rightly before the Lord? It does not seem like that is what you are saying, however. It really resembles the idea that because they were pre-flood statutes, then they are therefore "eternal" statutes, and those who do not abide by them are in error.

It also seems to fly in the face of the warning Paul gave to Timothy;

1Ti 4:1-5 "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer."

I can say that I fully believe the little squirrels running around in my yard were indeed created by God. No man or devil created them. God created them. Therefore, should they not be eaten with thanksgiving if God so chooses to give them to me? I am just trying to follow your train of thought here. It does not seem to line up with the entirety of the Bible, but only focuses on a part of it.

'i' won't reply to this much, other than saying that God does not change. Heb. 13:8. Peter had the reverse problem in Ats 10. (Himself!) He knew that Christ did not change, and that the [problem was his understanding of the THREE TIME VISION.] Did you get that?? Three Times God gave the Vision to him & HE WAS CONVINCED that God DOES NOT CHANGE! (but we still today hear it as you are teaching it, huh? With that theology mankind can eat anything & everything??)

And Inspiration from Pauls pen?? See that same above Inspired Peter in 2 Peter 3:16?? And I thought better of your [postsings.] Both Eat & Drink, & ask grace!??... and your little squirrel still looks like a rat with a different tail.;) (And both are Bibically unclean)
Do yourself a favor & check outyour theology with some anti/freez in your little squirrel.

OK: your theology applies to mankind, not squirrel's. But you do get the point?? Do you remembers Matt. 4 & satans PROMISE to Christ?? (Matt. 4:6 from O.T. Psalms 91:11 & Christ's reply from O.T. Deut. 6:16)

Whatever huh??

--Elijah

PS: I will get back with your questions when I am less busy.

 

[Nathan]

'i' won't reply to this much, other than saying that God does not change. Heb. 13:8. Peter had the reverse problem in Ats 10. (Himself!) He knew that Christ did not change, and that the [problem was his understanding of the THREE TIME VISION.] Did you get that?? Three Times God gave the Vision to him & HE WAS CONVINCED that God DOES NOT CHANGE! (but we still today hear it as you are teaching it, huh? With that theology mankind can eat anything & everything??)

And Inspiration from Pauls pen?? See that same above Inspired Peter in 2 Peter 3:16?? And I thought better of your [postsings.] Both Eat & Drink, & ask grace!??... and your little squirrel still looks like a rat with a different tail.;) (And both are Bibically unclean)
Do yourself a favor & check outyour theology with some anti/freez in your little squirrel.

OK: your theology applies to mankind, not squirrel's. But you do get the point?? Do you remembers Matt. 4 & satans PROMISE to Christ?? (Matt. 4:6 from O.T. Psalms 91:11 & Christ's reply from O.T. Deut. 6:16)

Whatever huh??

--Elijah

PS: I will get back with your questions when I am less busy.

Yes, please when you get the time to respond please do. Its not MY theology that is in question. It is what Paul clearly teaches about clean and unclean things. I could understand what you were saying if that was not taught by someone else. But if I am going to believe what Paul says about grace, forgiveness, sanctification, holiness, love, mercy, etc; then I have to also give credit to what he says about clean and unclean things.

I am by no means, whatsoever, trying to tell you that you should eat these things you deem unclean. What I am concerned with is you making others think that it is unclean and searing their conscience. God does not change, this is correct, but He does abolish certain things when the fulfillment of them come to pass. He no longer requires animal sacrifices, but He demanded them in the past. He no longer requires circumscision, but He demanded it in the past.

God does not change, but His dealing with us does. That cannot be avoided. There is a purpose for everything, however, and I am sure that there was a purpose for the clean and unclean animals. I do not think that just because something is not 'against the law of God' anymore that we should eat it. But I do not think that if I am given some food I will reject it thinking that God will be more pleased with me if I do. If it offends my brother, to that extent, then I will sell all the guns and ammo I have and eat grass with the cattle the rest of my days, if that what it takes to cause someone not to stumble.

But at the same time, I cannot, will not, accept a less than Biblically sound argument against what is clearly taught in the Word I love and cherish. I will defend to my dying day the love God has for ALL mankind, His mercy in giving us free will, and the grace that enables us to live righteously before Him. I will never back down from the power of Christ to change me, and the utter destituteness of my own power to change myself. I was born of the Spirit, I will not be made perfect by my flesh.

Please do answer my questions, and do not try and make it 'my' theology. The questions are posed directly from what the Bible says, not something I have made up.

 

[Elijah674]

Part One
Did Jesus Declare All Foods Clean?​

Let's compare two translations of scripture:

Mark 7:18 (NIV) "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?
Mark 7:19 (NIV) For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
Mark 7:18 (KJV) And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
Mark 7:19 (KJV) Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
​

Those two translations do not say the same thing. The King James does not have Jesus declaring all foods clean, in the biblical sense. It is saying all food passes through the body and is expelled. Jesus is not removing the prohibition on eating unclean animals. Modern translations like the NIV that say Jesus declared all foods clean are in error, and are intentionally mistranslated in order to justify eating the biblically unclean animals. Note the following:

Dan 1:8 (KJV) But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.
​

This begs the question, was Daniel sadly mistaken in believing he would be defiled by the King's unclean food and drink?
If one takes the position that Jesus said no food was unclean, that everything could be eaten without discrimination, then why did Daniel believe otherwise? There seems to be a problem of contradiction between these two passages.
Noah was aware of a distinction God had made between clean and unclean animals, even before the flood (Gen. 7:2), long before the time of the Mosaic food laws of Leviticus chapter 11, which specifies animals that are unclean, an abomination, and are not to be eaten. The Hebrew word translated as unclean, from Strong's concordance:

H2931. tame', taw-may'; from H2930; foul in a relig. sense:--defiled, + infamous, polluted (-tion), unclean.
H2930. tame', taw-may'; a prim. root; to be foul, espec. in a cerem. or mor. sense (contaminated):--defile (self), pollute (self), be (make, make self, pronounce) unclean, X utterly.
​

Note that "unclean" animals are polluted, contaminated and foul. That the unclean animals were taken into the ark by twos, and the clean animals by sevens, shows that Noah ate no unclean animals after the flood, nor used them for sacrifices (Gen 8:20), because that would have meant automatic extinction for the unclean animals. When after the flood, Noah was given permission to eat animals (Gen 9:3), it was in this context of the clean and unclean, which Noah was already aware of, it did not permit him to eat the unclean animals.
Because the differences in clean and unclean animals were made known to Noah before the flood, before permission to eat animals was given to humanity, it was something known and obeyed even by Abraham:

Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
​

So Daniel, in Daniel chapter 1, was on very firm ground in his insistence that the King's unclean food would defile him, because from the time of Noah, to Abraham, and through the time of Moses, God had instructed his people to know the difference in clean and unclean food, and to observe the prohibitions against the unclean. Note that Daniel's obedience, with respect to not eating the unclean foods of the king, was handsomely rewarded with good health:

Dan 1:15 And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat.
​

In addition to the prohibitions in Leviticus 11, Daniel also had this earlier example in Exodus to guide him in keeping his health through his diet:

Exo 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.
​

While not explicitly stated there, I think it is reasonable to assume that the diseases spoken of would have been the result of not heeding the distinctions made by God in clean and unclean animals. In addition there was a spiritual benefit for Daniel in refraining from eating the King's unclean food:

Dan 1:16 Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse.
Dan 1:17 As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.
Dan 1:20 And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.
​

Because Daniel would not eat the unclean food, or drink alcoholic wine, he was blessed with spiritual knowledge and wisdom. Now I ask, would Daniel still have been blessed by God if he had eaten the king's unclean food or drank his wine? I think not, and I see no reason that this principle would not apply to us even today. So now back to Jesus in the New Testament.
Question: In Mark chapter 7, did Jesus declare all animals clean, thereby declaring a change in the status of previously unclean animals, removing the prohibition against eating them?
My answer: The unclean animals were, and still are, unclean in the same manner that Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Daniel understood them to be from God. Nothing Jesus said changed the status of unclean animals. He did not repeal the laws prohibiting the eating of unclean animals, and unclean animals are never given the status of being fit for food.
Question: Were previously unclean animals now fit for sacrifices in the temple as a result of Jesus' declaration?
My Answer: No, they never were fit for sacrifice, and nothing Jesus said changed that.
Question: If one maintains that Jesus changed the status of previously unclean animals, and removed God's restrictions against eating them, then I ask you, did a change also physically occur in the animals themselves, such that they were now fit for consumption, when previously they were an abomination?
My answer: The unclean animals did not change in any respect as a result of Jesus' teaching. They were a health hazard in the Old Testament, polluted and intrinsically unfit for human consumption, and they remain so today.

(part two from Bible Lite will follow with their contact information at the bottom)

 

[Elijah674]

Part two.

Question: Then what exactly did Jesus say? What was He teaching? Look at the parallel passage in Matthew:

The scribes and Pharisees condemn Jesus' disciples for not washing their hands​

Mat 15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
​

​

Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?​

​

Jesus condemns the traditions of the scribes and Pharisees

Mat 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
​

​

Mat 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

Mat 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.​

Jesus again condemns the scribes and Pharisees tradition with a parable​

Mat 15:10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Mat 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
Mat 15:13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
Mat 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.​

Jesus explains the parable​

Mat 15:15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
Mat 15:16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
Mat 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.​

Question: Did Jesus conclude that the biblically unclean foods were now clean?
My Answer: No, He concluded that a man is not defiled by unwashed hands. Repeal of the biblically unclean foods prohibitions was simply not under discussion in the context of the passage. If that were what the scribes and Pharisees had understood Him to say, they would have gone berserk in their condemnation of Jesus, and would have charged him with heresy in abandoning or contradicting the dietary restrictions of God, but this they never did, because Jesus never did say or imply any such thing.
Question: So according to Jesus, does food defile a man?
My Answer: No, it does not, not in the sense Jesus was speaking about.
Question: In the context of Jesus' teaching, what was meant by "defileth" in verse 11?
My Answer: The scribes and Pharisees were condemning the disciples for not washing their hands, implying that they were therefore defiled or unclean, because Jesus' disciples did not follow the traditions of the elders. Jesus replied by rebuking the scribes and Pharisees, saying that nothing a man puts into his mouth defiles the heart, defilement which He defined as "evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, [and] blasphemies". The scribes and Pharisees, and Jesus, were speaking on two entirely different levels, the scribes and Pharisees were concerned with the cleanliness of the hands, and Jesus the cleanliness of the heart. Jesus was saying that nothing a man eats results in an unclean (sinful) heart, rather what a man says and does reveals the state of his heart. In other words, there is no direct cause and effect between any food and "evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, [and] blasphemies", so neither does unwashed hands produce these things either. Yet Jesus was not saying that the biblically unclean foods were now changed, and now healthy to eat, nor was He removing the biblical prohibitions against eating them. They were and still are polluted, contaminated and foul, hazards to your health.
Question: So why is Mark 7:19 worded the way it is in the NIV and some other Bibles? (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
My Answer: We need to look also at the King James, which reads differently:

Mark 7:18 (KJV) And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
​

Mark 7:19 (KJV) Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
_____________
​

(Elijah here: it appears that this will require a part Three to follow)

 

[Elijah674]

Part Three:

From what I have read, it is clear in the Greek (I don't know Greek) that the words "purging all meats" were not said by Jesus, but by the author of Mark as a comment, and that is why some Bibles that say "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean" have it in black and not red. They take the "And he saith unto them" from verse 18 and combine it with "purging all meats" from the end of verse 19, and this results in the statement in question in Mark 7:19 of the NIV and other bibles.
Note the word "purging" in verse 19. The word translated as purging has more than one meaning, and the differences are important. Jesus is teaching that it is significant that food passes through the body and ends up in the toilet. This observation would not be important if all food was intrinsically "clean" in the biblical sense before being eaten, since it would be clean going in, so to speak. Jesus is making the point that all food (clean or unclean) passes through the body, including that defiled by unwashed hands, and that it is not retained such that it corrupts a man's heart, causing him to sin. The food a man eats does not in itself cause a man to commit sin. All food is quickly expelled from the body, and this is what the comment at the end of verse 19 is observing, not that Jesus removed the prohibitions against biblically unclean foods.
In context, I suggest that this is the correct way to understand that passage:

Mark 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
​

Mark 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the toilet, (expelling all foods [from the body.])?
​

So the error in some Bibles in Mark 7:19, I propose, is that of intentional misinterpretation of the following word:

G2511. katharizo, kath-ar-id'-zo; from G2513; to cleanse (lit. or fig.):--(make) clean (-se), purge, purify.
​

If it is interpreted as "cleansing" the food, it results in all foods being cleansed in the process of consumption. If it is interpreted as "purging", in the sense of all foods being expelled from the body, it means something quite different. I suggest that the latter is the correct interpretation. Here is Merriam Webster's dictionary definition of "purge", which supports this conclusion:

Inflected Form(s): purged; purg·ing
​

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French purgier, from Latin purigare, purgare to purify, purge, from purus pure + -igare (akin to agere to drive, do) -- more at [SIZE=-1]ACT
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 a : to clear of guilt b : to free from moral or ceremonial defilement
2 a : to cause evacuation from (as the bowels) b (1) : to make free of something unwanted <purge a manhole of gas> <purge yourself of fear> (2) : to free (as a boiler) of sediment or relieve (as a steam pipe) of trapped air by bleeding c (1) : to rid (as a nation or party) by a purge (2) : to get rid of <the leaders had been purged> <purge money-losing operations>
[/SIZE]
​

It is the second definition that I suggest applies in Mark 7:19, and was the reason the King James uses it instead of "cleansing all meats". So with that interpretation of purging, Jesus was indeed teaching that no food you eat can corrupt your heart, such that it can be blamed for causing you to sin, but He did not remove the prohibitions against eating unclean animals, they remain an abomination, unfit for human consumption, and and a hazard to your health to this day. And as with Daniel, obeying God's prohibition against eating the unclean has not only physical, but spiritual rewards as well.

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
​

Does Prayer Sanctify Unclean Animals?

1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
​

1 Tim 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1 Tim 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1 Tim 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1 Tim 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
​

Some will cite verses 4 and 5 as proof that anything you might eat is sanctified by prayer. However the context is found in verse 3: "... meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving ... ." Unclean animals were not created to be eaten by man, there is no way that God can ever sanctify something He explicitly condemns as an abomination (Lev. 11).

See Hogs And Other Hazards for more information.
​

​

http://biblelight.net
​

 

[theLords]

Have you prayed about this Elijah?

 

[Nathan]

Thank you Elijah. I agree, there is/was a lot of 'additional' things written in some translations to 'help'(some would say) the reader get a better grasp on the subject. And I agree, Jesus never said, "the unclean foods are now clean".

But that particular passage, and interaction Jesus was having, does specifically address 'defilement' as inner defilement. As in sin. Jesus was dealing with sin.

We know sin is disobedience, ALL disobedience is sin. Therefore there is NO disobedience that is NOT SIN. Right? There is only obedience and disobedience.

Jesus specifically talks about "defilement" as sin;

Mar 7:20-23 "And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."

Now, we know that food does not produce 'murder', 'coveting', or 'deceit'. Therefore we know that in context Jesus is referring to "defilement" as sin. Those things are sin, they are not a result of eating ANY food, clean or unclean. They are not 'food waste' that is expelled from a man. They are sin that comes out of a man. Therefore we must take into context what He is using this word "defile" for.

Therefore when He said;

Mar 7:14-15 "And he called the people to him again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him."

He directly states that NOTHING that enters into a man, ie food and drink, that can 'defile' him. I understand that He does not specifically state that "all unclean foods are now made clean", but if it cannot 'defile' which we understand is what sin does, then it is not disobedience.

How is that? Because if it did defile, then it would be linked to sin. And we know that ALL sin is disobedience. However, if it does not defile then it is not sin, because it is not disobedience.

But, what you have yet to address, which Paul addresses, is that the man or woman who thinks(in their hearts) that it is disobedience, then to them it is disobedience and they should not eat. At that point it 'becomes' sin. But Paul states very clearly and concisely that NOTHING is unclean.

Rom 14:13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.


Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.


Rom 14:15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.


Rom 14:16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil.


Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.


Rom 14:18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.


Rom 14:19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.


Rom 14:20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats.


Rom 14:21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.


Rom 14:22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves.


Rom 14:23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

Now, for clear explanation, I am no longer going to address this issue. I have only come so far as to clarify the truth that is in Christ Jesus. I will no longer defend the truth, God is more than capable of doing that. If a man or woman chooses not to eat those things deemed 'unclean' then that is very well, there is NO.....NONE.....NOT A BIT of judgment in my heart for them. And I would NEVER tell them they were silly, or crazy for not eating those things. If that is what they choose, then it is their choice.

But I will not sit idly by and let someone who has a weak conscience be led into thinking they have to 'abide' by the Levitical law in order to please God. Faith, and faith alone is what pleases God. If we focus on fleshly and earthly things, we miss the spiritual things of God. This world, and ALL that is in it will be destroyed. All the clean animals as well as the unclean. Our bodies will be destroyed.

 

[Nathan]

Let me clarify. I will ALWAYS defend the truth, but in this thread I am done. I have done what I was called to do. I can do no more. If others have questions they are more than welcome to ask.

This is no offense intended to you Elijah, but if I am not careful I will fall into making this into a debate. And this is not the forum for it. This is a Bible Study forum, and as such we have indeed studied the Bible. I just do not see it getting any clearer than Romans 14 contrasted with 1 Timothy 4.

 

[Elijah674]

Let me clarify. I will ALWAYS defend the truth, but in this thread I am done. I have done what I was called to do. I can do no more. If others have questions they are more than welcome to ask.

This is no offense intended to you Elijah, but if I am not careful I will fall into making this into a debate. And this is not the forum for it. This is a Bible Study forum, and as such we have indeed studied the Bible. I just do not see it getting any clearer than Romans 14 contrasted with 1 Timothy 4.

Hi, thanks for coming out in CLEAR speach. I wish that you had done that about a couple dozen personal emails to me ago. As stated back then, I try to be as open as sunlite & reply to My Masters Word instead of the person! But I also realise over the long years that when one is convicted of the Holy Spirits Leading, it some times seem's of a personal 'debate' matter. (Acts 9:5) And It took a lot of time which could have been board posted and many people could have read 'What you are CALLED TO DO'. (as you say)

And debate?? Whatever??

--Elijah

 

[Strangelove]

Elijah...

What business is it of you judging me in a post like.. Re: Clean & Unclean, huh? are many 'Christian' ones thoughts!?

 

[Nathan]

Hi, thanks for coming out in CLEAR speach. I wish that you had done that about a couple dozen personal emails to me ago. As stated back then, I try to be as open as sunlite & reply to My Masters Word instead of the person! But I also realise over the long years that when one is convicted of the Holy Spirits Leading, it some times seem's of a personal 'debate' matter. (Acts 9:5) And It took a lot of time which could have been board posted and many people could have read 'What you are CALLED TO DO'. (as you say)

And debate?? Whatever??

--Elijah

I have been clear, both to you, and to the public at large by my posts in here.

You are making this more than it is, and turning it personal. I am trying to stick to Biblical teaching, and yet it is turning personal. That is why I must quit. I would address this in a PM but you seem to think I am 'hiding' when I do so.

I would still welcome, and appreciate, an adequate exposition of Romans chapter 14 by you.

I am called, as well as ALL who are called, to defend the faith that was once delivered to the saints. This is our calling, to proclaim the Gospel. I have done so in this thread, which is why I can do no more. It is clear and concisely presented by Paul that nothing is unclean as it concerns 'obedience and disobedience' to the law.

I will not, however, and have not, stated that God did not call certain animals clean and unclean. But you have taken it to another level. You are going past the physical calling of them, into the spiritual meaning of them on NT believers. If you want to talk about whether 'pork' or 'squirrel' or 'catfish' are more prone to physical diseases and the like; then I will welcome the discussion and study.

But what you have alluded to is that a NT believer cannot mature in Christ if he or she does not abide by dietary laws in the OT. This is certainly not found in any Biblical passages, and is in effect directly opposing quite a few.

Now, if you are not stating that 'a man or woman cannot become mature in the faith by eating "unclean" foods'; then by all means please say so clearly. Because it seems quite the opposite. I understand, from our conversations, that you do not believe that it is an immediate cause for denial of eternal life, but from what you have posted on this subject it seems that you believe it can lead to a final 'maturing' of sin which leads to revocation of eternal life. If that is not so, please say so clearly.

I consider you a friend, and I do not want this to become personal. But it is better if I obey God than man. And so for the sake of those who like to abstain from certain foods, I must not make it sound like I think they are ridiculous in doing so. But at the same time, I must contend earnestly for the faith that says "it is not what you eat that makes you sinful, it is what is in you that makes you sinful". For in placing an preeminence on the physical takes away from the true heart of the matter.

In placing an emphasis on foods, and laws, and works, and the like; it takes away from the fact that God requires faith from an individual. It takes away from the work that He does in the life of an individual, and makes the one searching think that they have to do something to gain this faith. God is the one working through faith in us, not us working through faith in God.

If you want to talk about OT deemed "unclean" foods, then lets do it. I think it would be an interesting study. But we must keep it in the physical realm, and not go against the teachings of the Apostles that gave us the message of the Gospel, saying that one "must" abstain from 'unclean' foods to fulfill the Masters wishes. The Gospel is clear; He died to take away our sins, and in Him we have newness of life. Our bodies are not our own, but rather are His. If we have faith in what we eat, then we should have that faith between ourselves and Him. If we have faith in what we do not eat, then we should have that faith between ourselves and Him.

In ALL circumstances, we MUST abstain from pronouncing judgment on another for what he does or does not do.

 

[Elijah674]

Let me clarify. I will ALWAYS defend the truth, but in this thread I am done. I have done what I was called to do. I can do no more. If others have questions they are more than welcome to ask.

This is no offense intended to you Elijah, but if I am not careful I will fall into making this into a debate. And this is not the forum for it. This is a Bible Study forum, and as such we have indeed studied the Bible. I just do not see it getting any clearer than Romans 14 contrasted with 1 Timothy 4.

Was that your post with my highlites? Whatever.

--Elijah

 

[Elijah674]

OK! This is Acts 10. Christ has already Gone to heaven as our High Priest & has sent the Holy Spirit back to Guide us into ALL Truth. Peter was converted as seen in the process of Luke 22:31-32 & Matt. 26:69-75. And in Acts we see an amazing Truth, if one can grasp it? (Heb. 6:3)

Acts 10

[9] On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
[10] And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
[11] And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

[12] Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
[13] And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
[14] But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
[15] And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
[16] This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

[17] Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate, ..'

OK: Bible study time. Was this a hard to understand 3 time vision?? And Peter's reply to God was WHAT! Yet why did Peter not believe [[HIS OWN UNDERSTANDING]] of what God documented to him three times? Sure the last day increased 'promised' knowledge from Dan. finds most now understanding this as further verses tell, that it was referring to the Gentiles as being cleansed.

But my thought for you to consider is Peter saying.. 'Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything common or unclean'.

Do you not believe that he believed the same Holy Spirits Inspiration that Christ sent back which He Inspired in Mal. 3:6.. 'For I am the Lord, I change not..' or the N.T. (from Paul's pen?) of Heb. 13:8 & 9.. 'Jesus Christ the same [yesterday,] and today, and [FOREVER]. Be not carried about with 'divers' and strange doctrines.'

And how can anyone know Peter's reasons for not understanding his 3 time vision if Matt. 4:4 & 2 Tim. 3:16 is also given the heave/hoe? (bottom/line!)

--Elijah

 

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by nathanielhooper
Let me clarify. I will ALWAYS defend the truth, but in this thread I am done. I have done what I was called to do. I can do no more. If others have questions they are more than welcome to ask.

This is no offense intended to you Elijah, but if I am not careful I will fall into making this into a debate. And this is not the forum for it. This is a Bible Study forum, and as such we have indeed studied the Bible. I just do not see it getting any clearer than Romans 14 contrasted with 1 Timothy 4.

Was that your post with my highlites? Whatever.

--Elijah

What I am saying with that above comment is that I can do nothing more with this discussion/study. You are not addressing the other points of Biblical passages, and only sit on the one passage you reiterate. What I am saying is that this is going no where, and this is not the place for debating. If you want to study this, then by all means lets study it. But if it was just a simple place for you to proclaim something, then you have done what you wanted; and I can do no more, I am done.

That is what my post was stating. I do not want this to be viewed as personal talk. This is not the forum for it. I am not, however, against the study of what you are bringing up. But we would be wise to not sit inside of one passage to understand the full meaning of the truth.

 

[Strangelove]

Elijah...

Can you please list all the foods that us Christians arn't allowed to eat.

Thanks.

 

[stovebolts]

Moved from Bible Study to AP

 

[smaller]

It's one thing to refrain as a matter of personal conviction.

It is quite another to condemn people to eternal death over eating PORK.

In that the refrainers have eaten A FAR WORSE and DIRE matter 'internally' via CONDEMNATION to other 'sinners.'

Paul expressly forbids this practice of yours in many places, already cited to you prior and now to include

Romans 2:
1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.
3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?

The LAW [all] serves ONE PRIMARY purpose upon ALL mankind, Jew and Gentile alike:

Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

MERE SINNING MORTALS of any STRIPE have not been called to SIT IN THE ETERNAL JUDGMENT SEAT against ANY MAN.

The 'practice' of the SDA is not one whit different than the RCC. Y'all carry your fellow believers to the GATE of ETERNAL DEATH and LAY THEM THERE in your own hearts.

Pity on YOUR HEART for such darkness within.

s

 

[Strangelove]

It's one thing to refrain as a matter of personal conviction.

It is quite another to condemn people to eternal death over eating PORK.

In that the refrainers have eaten A FAR WORSE and DIRE matter 'internally' via CONDEMNATION to other 'sinners.'

Paul expressly forbids this practice of yours in many places, already cited to you prior and now to include

Romans 2:
1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.
3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?

The LAW [all] serves ONE PRIMARY purpose upon ALL mankind, Jew and Gentile alike:

Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

MERE SINNING MORTALS of any STRIPE have not been called to SIT IN THE ETERNAL JUDGMENT SEAT against ANY MAN.

The 'practice' of the SDA is not one whit different than the RCC. Y'all carry your fellow believers to the GATE of ETERNAL DEATH and LAY THEM THERE in your own hearts.

Pity on YOUR HEART for such darkness within.

s

Um......Agree with Smaller?


(did I just say that?)