Can Science Clean Up Swine?

[safswan]

Thanks for your input, but I totally disagree. Noah was told by God that he could eat all that moved. If God would have meant just clean He would have instructed Noah. You are adding to the passage your interpretation of very easy wording to understand. I am sure you would like to believe otherwise, but your understanding just is not there.

This(in bold)was not what Noah was told.The entire instruction is important as it introduces a restriction,not seen,if we should only use the words you quote.The passage says:

Gen 9:
3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

If Noah could have eaten any green herb without restriction then he could also eat every animal without restriction.However as was shown the green herbs or plants were restricted to:

Genesis 1:
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

So it is that Noah must have been restricted to those animals he knew were clean.It is obvious,but not written in scripture,that he knew how to differentiate the clean from the unclean.Would you say I am adding to scripture in saying this?So it is that we may not see the direct instruction as you would want.However for the statement (Genesis 9:3)to make sense then this is how it must be understood.If not,then you would have God reject the unclean as sacrifice to Himself but then give it to Noah for food.This is not only illogical but a clear denial of the obvious.

It is this type of superficial reading of the scriptures or view of the sayings of Jesus that leads,to men mutilating themselves in response to Matthew 5:29,30,and to them turning away from Jesus and formulating the doctrine of transubstantiation based on the sayings of Jesus in John 6:51-66.

 

[Bob S]

This(in bold)was not what Noah was told.The entire instruction is important as it introduces a restriction,not seen,if we should only use the words you quote.The passage says:

Gen 9:
3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

If Noah could have eaten any green herb without restriction then he could also eat every animal without restriction.However as was shown the green herbs or plants were restricted to:

Genesis 1:
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

So it is that Noah must have been restricted to those animals he knew were clean.It is obvious,but not written in scripture,that he knew how to differentiate the clean from the unclean.Would you say I am adding to scripture in saying this?So it is that we may not see the direct instruction as you would want.However for the statement (Genesis 9:3)to make sense then this is how it must be understood.If not,then you would have God reject the unclean as sacrifice to Himself but then give it to Noah for food.This is not only illogical but a clear denial of the obvious.

It is this type of superficial reading of the scriptures or view of the sayings of Jesus that leads,to men mutilating themselves in response to Matthew 5:29,30,and to them turning away from Jesus and formulating the doctrine of transubstantiation based on the sayings of Jesus in John 6:51-66.

Ever hear of a metaphor? Jesus used them in teaching others. "a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.”"

 

[Lulav]

Seriously you ask if eating pork is unclean?

Once again Jesus called the crowd to Him and said, “All of you, listen to Me and understand: 15 Nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him; but the things that come out of a man, these are what defile him.”

That's the biblical answer. And we all know if pork is cooked correctly there is no problem.

Excuse me, I'm going to make a BLT! Yes!

1. Jesus was speaking about eating what GOD Calls Food with unwashed hands, not eating what GOD calls unclean.
2. …2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. ~John 1
3. If Jesus made swine 'clean' he would have been stoned for teaching against the Torah, which he gave to his people on the mountain.
4. If this is true then he couldn't be the Messiah because he would be sinning and not the one who had not sin to be sin for us.
5. If Jesus did make all things 'clean' then why would Peter argue with GOD in Acts 10? He proclaimed that he had never eaten anything unclean and wasn't about to start then. So if this teaching really came from Jesus why didn't he know about it?
6. Most scholars agree that the 'Thus declaring all things clean' was an addition by a scribe, most likely a Gentile one.

 

[Lulav]

It is written God gave Israel bad laws.
But the new wine makes the old sacks burst.
Things seem to have changed with Christ and the inclusion of the Gentiles.
It's all about faith in God now, as opposed to living by the letter of the old laws.
The law of Christ are the 2 equal great commandments.
We're quite free to choose how we shape / express our Love for God and fellow humans.
It's about a change of heart rather than a change of diet.

 

[safswan]

Ever hear of a metaphor? Jesus used them in teaching others. "a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.”"

And as I stated,it is the superficial reading of like statements which would lead you to believe,that God would reject the unclean as sacrifice to Himself but then give it to Noah for food.This is not only illogical but a clear denial of the obvious.

 

[Bob S]

Seems to me like you have created a strawman argument. Two completely different scenarios. The statement stands without any interpretation. 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be food for you; As the green herb have I given you all.

 

[Bob S]

1. Jesus was speaking about eating what GOD Calls Food with unwashed hands, not eating what GOD calls unclean.

The problem with trying to interpret plainly written scripture is that we can take anything written and change the meaning. Even if you are correct and it was about unclean hands, if a person had handled a dead animal or body the food the person touched would be unclean. I believe we have a right to take the verse as it is written. It is what comes out of our mouths that defiles, not what goes in the mouth.

2. …2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. ~John 1

The animals that were deemed unclean wasnot because anyone would have eaten them it was a ceremonial issue. No animal deemed unclean could be used as a sacrifice. Swine were domestic animals that Gentiles used to make footballs for food.

3. If Jesus made swine 'clean' he would have been stoned for teaching against the Torah, which he gave to his people on the mountain.

That same argument can be used for His statement that the Sabbath was made for man now was it not?

4. If this is true then he couldn't be the Messiah because he would be sinning and not the one who had not sin to be sin for us.

Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath and when He broke the Sabbath it was not a sin.

5. If Jesus did make all things 'clean' then why would Peter argue with GOD in Acts 10? He proclaimed that he had never eaten anything unclean and wasn't about to start then. So if this teaching really came from Jesus why didn't he know about it?

Seems like Peter didn't believe many things.

6. Most scholars agree that the 'Thus declaring all things clean' was an addition by a scribe, most likely a Gentile one.

If we use that theory then we can do about anything we please and lay the blame on the scribes.

You might be right Lulav, but as you can see there is always another view as I have pointed out.

By the way, God, as far as we know, has never told the Gentiles that eating swine and other so-called unclean animals is a sin. My family were farmers and pigs were part of their living. My Mom lived to be 100 and she didn't live on a restricted diet.

 

[Lulav]

Hi Bob,

When one reads the gospels from the viewpoint of the culture and to whom Yeshua was speaking to the understanding is clear, very clear.

When you understand the customs and traditions of the time along with Torah then it becomes clearer still.

The problem with trying to interpret plainly written scripture is that we can take anything written and change the meaning. Even if you are correct and it was about unclean hands, if a person had handled a dead animal or body the food the person touched would be unclean. I believe we have a right to take the verse as it is written. It is what comes out of our mouths that defiles, not what goes in the mouth.

The thing is that food , things you eat, was not the subject of the discussion between Yeshua and the Pharisees. It was not about 'kosher'. As you can see by the context this subject was not something he was teaching 'new' or changing from what was given at Sinai, it was about tradition, not Torah.
Let's take a look at the context, setting the scene, remember all these things must be taken into consideration, not just a sentence or two.

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.​

The Scribes and Pharisees came to him for a favorite past time, that of Jewish debate. They asked him why he allowed his students (called disciples here as each Rabbi had these 'talmidim') and they introduce the subject for debate. They asked him why his students didn't follow the traditions of the elders. There is no mention of the 'laws' here nor eating at this point, it was about pre eating that they were talking about. They accused his students of not washing before they ate.

Yeshua/Jesus responds to them with another question.
Speaking about how they uphold tradition over the Commandments

3 But he answered and said unto them,
Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
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;
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.
7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 'This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.'
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.​

Here he turns the tables on them and ups them one to boot. They asked him why his students don't keep the tradition of washing ones hands before eating and he in turn asks them why they put their traditions over the commandments of God.
He picks one commandment to illustrate this, that of honoring your parents. They made up a tradition that they would be free from the obligation of taking care of their parents by telling them that the goods or money they had was promised as an offering and that by not giving it to them they were free from that law. Thinking this made them look better to God by making gifts to the temple.

Peter then comes to him after this showdown and tells Jesus that the Pharisees are bent out of shape because of his teaching, so he explains it to him.

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

Now there is something that is known at this time that is not included, this is part of history and the culture and people living there in Israel at the time. Remember the Romans lived there as well as other nationalities and the Pharisees were very pious and over cautious about not being defiled. The reason they came up with the hand washing is that they believed that 'evil spirits' could live under the finger nails and cause you to be sick so they instituted this tradition to wash before eating. Today we recognize these 'evil spirits' as 'germs' and our fingernails and hands are full of them. They considered not washing as a way they would be defiled by these evil spirits but Yeshua was trying to tell them that those germs going in would not defile them, but the thoughts of the heart would coming out.

This is why he says: For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Now eating is mentioned here but not what was eaten, it was in reference to what was done before eating, not the eating itself.

The animals that were deemed unclean was not because anyone would have eaten them it was a ceremonial issue. No animal deemed unclean could be used as a sacrifice. Swine were domestic animals that Gentiles used to make footballs for food.

I'm not sure what that has to do with John 1, I was pointing out that Jesus was with the creator and he knew what was to be food and what wasn't.

That same argument can be used for His statement that the Sabbath was made for man now was it not?

Lulav said:3. If Jesus made swine 'clean' he would have been stoned for teaching against the Torah, which he gave to his people on the mountain.​

So no , it cannot. The reason is it has nothing to do with keeping the Sabbath Holy. As for man, it was made so he could rest in exact mirroring of God/Jesus when he completed the creation week.

Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath and when He broke the Sabbath it was not a sin.

Please show me where he 'broke the Sabbath' in the NT. And Please give reference by Torah book, chapter and verse of what law was broken and how.

Lulav said:4. If this is true then he couldn't be the Messiah because he would be sinning and not the one who had not sin to be sin for us.​

Remember to say he 'broke the Sabbath' is saying he broke the Torah (laws of God) and he then could not be:

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Seems like Peter didn't believe many things.

Where in this part of my post did I say anything about what Peter believed?

LULAV said:5. If Jesus did make all things 'clean' then why would Peter argue with GOD in Acts 10? He proclaimed that he had never eaten anything unclean and wasn't about to start then. So if this teaching really came from Jesus why didn't he know about it?​

If we use that theory then we can do about anything we please and lay the blame on the scribes.

Not really and it's not a theory either.
New International Version “For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
English Standard Version “since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
New American Standard Bible “because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
King James Version “Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?”

Notice it's not found in the KJV. You can check it out for yourself in the Codex Sinaiticus. It's not there.

You might be right Lulav, but as you can see there is always another view as I have pointed out.

Yes, there are always more views but these emanate from cultural misunderstandings as well as transcribers trying to make a passage understood when they didn't have the background to understand it in themselves. This is a perfect case of that.

By the way, God, as far as we know, has never told the Gentiles that eating swine and other so-called unclean animals is a sin. My family were farmers and pigs were part of their living. My Mom lived to be 100 and she didn't live on a restricted diet.

I'll have to beg to difer, it was handed down to be taught to the Gentiles that were turning to God that they would be weekly in the Synogogue hearing the Torah read and this would be where God spoke to those who joined themselves to Israel which is explained in the Torah that those who join themselves to Israel are to follow the same laws in certain things that pertain to them..

 

[Bob S]

Hi Bob,

When one reads the gospels from the viewpoint of the culture and to whom Yeshua was speaking to the understanding is clear, very clear.

When you understand the customs and traditions of the time along with Torah then it becomes clearer still.
The thing is that food , things you eat, was not the subject of the discussion between Yeshua and the Pharisees. It was not about 'kosher'. As you can see by the context this subject was not something he was teaching 'new' or changing from what was given at Sinai, it was about tradition, not Torah.
Let's take a look at the context, setting the scene, remember all these things must be taken into consideration, not just a sentence or two.

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.​

The Scribes and Pharisees came to him for a favorite past time, that of Jewish debate. They asked him why he allowed his students (called disciples here as each Rabbi had these 'talmidim') and they introduce the subject for debate. They asked him why his students didn't follow the traditions of the elders. There is no mention of the 'laws' here nor eating at this point, it was about pre eating that they were talking about. They accused his students of not washing before they ate.

Yeshua/Jesus responds to them with another question.
Speaking about how they uphold tradition over the Commandments

3 But he answered and said unto them,
Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
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;
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.
7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 'This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.'
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.​

Here he turns the tables on them and ups them one to boot. They asked him why his students don't keep the tradition of washing ones hands before eating and he in turn asks them why they put their traditions over the commandments of God.
He picks one commandment to illustrate this, that of honoring your parents. They made up a tradition that they would be free from the obligation of taking care of their parents by telling them that the goods or money they had was promised as an offering and that by not giving it to them they were free from that law. Thinking this made them look better to God by making gifts to the temple.

Peter then comes to him after this showdown and tells Jesus that the Pharisees are bent out of shape because of his teaching, so he explains it to him.

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

Now there is something that is known at this time that is not included, this is part of history and the culture and people living there in Israel at the time. Remember the Romans lived there as well as other nationalities and the Pharisees were very pious and over cautious about not being defiled. The reason they came up with the hand washing is that they believed that 'evil spirits' could live under the finger nails and cause you to be sick so they instituted this tradition to wash before eating. Today we recognize these 'evil spirits' as 'germs' and our fingernails and hands are full of them. They considered not washing as a way they would be defiled by these evil spirits but Yeshua was trying to tell them that those germs going in would not defile them, but the thoughts of the heart would coming out.

This is why he says: For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Now eating is mentioned here but not what was eaten, it was in reference to what was done before eating, not the eating itself.

Thank you for explaining that to me Lulav. one of my remarks in my last post to you was that those who didn't wash their hands may have been handling dead carcasses which according to the Law of Moses certainly would have been wrong. As far as your explanation about the germs, do you believe Jesus didn't understand that eating with unclean hands could make a person very sick and even cause death? Eating with unclean hands, according to Jesus, would not defile, make a person unclean.

I'm not sure what that has to do with John 1,

Hmmm, I don't either. My next thought was that man was not given meat to eat before the flood, but they knew the difference between clean and unclean animals. That must have been because of the ceremonial issue concerning what animals could be used for sacrifice. It was not a concern as to what animal could be eaten. God did not restrict Noah as to what he could not eat. The land had been under water, so there were no fruits and veggies yet. God gave him every moving thing as food. There were no instructions as to not eat those unclean piglets.

I was pointing out that Jesus was with the creator and he knew what was to be food and what wasn't.

He certainly didn't relate that to Noah according to Moses.

So no , it cannot. The reason is it has nothing to do with keeping the Sabbath Holy. As for man, it was made so he could rest in exact mirroring of God/Jesus when he completed the creation week.

You wrote: "3. If Jesus made swine 'clean' he would have been stoned for teaching against the Torah, which he gave to his people on the mountain."

I was using the fact that Jesus was speaking to Jews when He said the Sabbath was made for man. Jews, it would seem, would be very upset to know that Gentiles were invited to horn in on their special day. Parallel reasoning. Neither time did the Jews attack Jesus for encroaching on their sacred ground.

Please show me where he 'broke the Sabbath' in the NT. And Please give reference by Torah book, chapter and verse of what law was broken and how.

Lulav said:4. If this is true then he couldn't be the Messiah because he would be sinning and not the one who had not sin to be sin for us.​

Remember to say he 'broke the Sabbath' is saying he broke the Torah (laws of God) and he then could not be:

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Judaism 101: Shabbat under Shamor And #39

1. Taking an object from the private domain to the public, or transporting an object in the public domain.

In Jn 5 Jesus told the paraplegic, on the Sabbath, to take up His bed and walk.

Where in this part of my post did I say anything about what Peter believed?

LULAV said:5. If Jesus did make all things 'clean' then why would Peter argue with GOD in Acts 10? He proclaimed that he had never eaten anything unclean and wasn't about to start then. So if this teaching really came from Jesus why didn't he know about it?​

I have no idea and neither do you. You didn't say anything about believing, I did.

Not really and it's not a theory either.
New International Version “For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
English Standard Version “since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
New American Standard Bible “because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
King James Version “Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?”

Notice it's not found in the KJV. You can check it out for yourself in the Codex Sinaiticus. It's not there.

So, are you saying the King James version is the final authority or are you using that version to prove your belief?

Yes, there are always more views but these emanate from cultural misunderstandings as well as transcribers trying to make a passage understood when they didn't have the background to understand it in themselves. This is a perfect case of that.

Neither of us knows what the transcribers' backgrounds were, so that seems like a lame excuse to use. They were probably very savvy.

I'll have to beg to difer, it was handed down to be taught to the Gentiles that were turning to God that they would be weekly in the Synogogue hearing the Torah read and this would be where God spoke to those who joined themselves to Israel which is explained in the Torah that those who join themselves to Israel are to follow the same laws in certain things that pertain to them..

Yes, we do differ and I know Gentiles grew pigs to eat. Were they/we going against God in doing so? Someday we will have the chance to sit at the feet of Jesus and receive more than the speculations both of us have come up with.

One thing I do know, if you come to my home and have a meal with my wife and me we will honor your beliefs and only serve the foods of your beliefs. We have many SDA friends that have sat at our table and we wouldn't think of serving something they believe is not for food. A good SDA won't partake of pepper, so our food wouldn't have any in it. If they are veggies my wife will make them wonderful casseroles.

Our eternal reward doesn't hinge on what we eat or when we choose to rest. It hinges on whether we accept Jesus as our Savior and how we relate to God, the Holy Spirit and our fellow man. We know we belong to the truth if we believe and love. 1Jn 3:19-24

 

[Lulav]

Thank you for explaining that to me Lulav. one of my remarks in my last post to you was that those who didn't wash their hands may have been handling dead carcasses which according to the Law of Moses certainly would have been wrong.

There's nothing in the Torah in regard to this as you see it. To do duties in the temple (of course we would be talking about Levites here or Priests) then they would need to wash and in some cases be separate before coming before the LORD. But as far as eating, this isn't a moot point.

I see you have side stepped my long explanation that the scenario we are speaking of was not speaking of what you eat but about eating without washing hands first.

As far as your explanation about the germs, do you believe Jesus didn't understand that eating with unclean hands could make a person very sick and even cause death? Eating with unclean hands, according to Jesus, would not defile, make a person unclean.

You need to understand what tumah, taharah and tame.
Of course he understood this but I'm telling you that it is not a commandment to wash your hands before eating, it was a tradition, it says so right in the passage.

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

This was not a 'sin' to God but to them they put it on equal standing.

But Jesus told them that they were sinning by putting aside HIS commandments for their traditions:

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

There are unclean hands and unwashed hands, they are not the same.

Hmmm, I don't either. My next thought was that man was not given meat to eat before the flood, but they knew the difference between clean and unclean animals. That must have been because of the ceremonial issue concerning what animals could be used for sacrifice. It was not a concern as to what animal could be eaten. God did not restrict Noah as to what he could not eat. The land had been under water, so there were no fruits and veggies yet. God gave him every moving thing as food. There were no instructions as to not eat those unclean piglets.

I think someone else explained that eloquently above.

He certainly didn't relate that to Noah according to Moses.

Well I can't prove it but my theory is that Noah didn't choose the animals to save on the ark, the LORD did and sent them to him. It would then be deductive reasoning for Noah and his family to figure out that if the LORD sent 14 of certain kinds and only two of others that the 'extra' would be separate for something. And to me that would be for sacrifice and for eating (which Noah found out after the flood was over).

You wrote: "3. If Jesus made swine 'clean' he would have been stoned for teaching against the Torah, which he gave to his people on the mountain."

I was using the fact that Jesus was speaking to Jews when He said the Sabbath was made for man. Jews, it would seem, would be very upset to know that Gentiles were invited to horn in on their special day. Parallel reasoning. Neither time did the Jews attack Jesus for encroaching on their sacred ground.

No, good point, I'm glad you see that. If Jesus was indeed teaching the Pharisees that they could not only eat without washing their hands but eat anything they liked, there would have been an uproar.
As far as the Sabbath, well, the Gentiles were not brought in at that point, in general, of course there were Gentiles back then who did wish to join Israel and did so. So that is a non sequitur.

Judaism 101: Shabbat under Shamor And #39

1. Taking an object from the private domain to the public, or transporting an object in the public domain.

In Jn 5 Jesus told the paraplegic, on the Sabbath, to take up His bed and walk.

I asked you to show me where it says he broke the Sabbath.
1. Jesus did not pick up the bed
2. However he did instruct or 'teach' another to do so, which is almost just as bad 'IF' indeed it was against the laws of GOD to not do so.
3. What you have shown is part of the confusion and also an example just like the washing of hands, it is a tradition, not Torah.

Please show in the Torah where it says you can not do that. You can't because it isn't in there. Many of the things you can't do on Shabbat are not found in the Torah, but the Talmud. These emanate from using the workings of building the Tabernacle to understand the difference between work and non work. It's like another of those found in the NT, speaking of a 'Shabbat's walk' there's nothing in the Torah about this, it is oral law or later known as the Talmud.

Jesus didn't have anything against these as they helped one to keep from transgressing the Torah, but he did have a problem with having them override the Torah as just like he explained about the hand washing in that passage.

I have no idea and neither do you. You didn't say anything about believing, I did.

Right, and so why did you say that, do you think that Peter didn't believe GOD? Or perhaps he was testing him as well as showing him about the Gentiles and not speaking of eating, just like the passage with Jesus and the Pharisees were's speaking of eating but something preceding it?

So, are you saying the King James version is the final authority or are you using that version to prove your belief?

Did you see me write that? No, you didn't I merely posted the same passage from four different well known Bible translations and it shows that the KJV doesn't contain the scribes/translators addition in parentheses.
I also gave you a link to verify it yourself from the Codex Sinaiticus to see in that ancient writing that it isn't in there as well.

It's not about my belief, it's about fact which I showed and can be verified yourself if you really want to know instead of turning it on me.

Neither of us knows what the transcribers' backgrounds were, so that seems like a lame excuse to use. They were probably very savvy.

Not lame at all, this has been proven time and again by scholars. Any casual glance at a lexicon will show that for every word in the bible there is usually two or more meanings.

Yes, we do differ and I know Gentiles grew pigs to eat. Were they/we going against God in doing so? Someday we will have the chance to sit at the feet of Jesus and receive more than the speculations both of us have come up with.

Let me ask you this. You ask if the Gentiles were going against God, and I'll have to say that those doing so back then, didn't know any better. But we do have an incident that sheds so light on the subject. What did Jesus think of pigs? Did he have respect for them as a food for Gentiles?

Luke 8:32 Now there was a herd of many swine feeding there on the mountain; and the demons implored Him to permit them to enter the swine. And He gave them permission.

One thing I do know, if you come to my home and have a meal with my wife and me we will honor your beliefs and only serve the foods of your beliefs. We have many SDA friends that have sat at our table and we wouldn't think of serving something they believe is not for food. A good SDA won't partake of pepper, so our food wouldn't have any in it. If they are veggies my wife will make them wonderful casseroles.

Our eternal reward doesn't hinge on what we eat or when we choose to rest. It hinges on whether we accept Jesus as our Savior and how we relate to God, the Holy Spirit and our fellow man. We know we belong to the truth if we believe and love. 1Jn 3:19-24

That is nice that you respect the beliefs of your guests. I'm not sure I've ever heard about SDA's not eating pepper, did you mean the spice or vegetable?
Let me ask you this though, if you were to invite a Muslim to your house and they require their meat to have been slaughtered and sacrificed to their god, Allah, would you get them Hallal meat and serve it to them?

 

[Bob S]

I see you have side stepped my long explanation that the scenario we are speaking of was not speaking of what you eat but about eating without washing hands first.

I am sorry I didn't elaborate on your explanation. I didn't have anything to"complain" about. It is well written and is very informative. I did thank you for explaining. You certainly know more about the Torah than I do. My study has not been on food laws and how they would relate to Christians and the remainder of the World's people. There is not much said about what a Christian can or cannot partake and since the law (words of the Sinai covenant) ended at Calvary it really doesn't seem that important.

After reading your explanation is there any reason to prepare food kosher?

Of course he understood this but I'm telling you that it is not a commandment to wash your hands before eating, it was a tradition, it says so right in the passage.

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

This was not a 'sin' to God but to them they put it on equal standing.

But Jesus told them that they were sinning by putting aside HIS commandments for their traditions:

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

There are unclean hands and unwashed hands, they are not the same.

I learn something new every day. Sometimes it doesn't soak in the first time, so bear with me.

Well I can't prove it but my theory is that Noah didn't choose the animals to save on the ark, the LORD did and sent them to him. It would then be deductive reasoning for Noah and his family to figure out that if the LORD sent 14 of certain kinds and only two of others that the 'extra' would be separate for something. And to me that would be for sacrifice and for eating (which Noah found out after the flood was over).

When I write something pretty obvious, but I cannot prove it with scripture please show me a little grace as I will you.

I asked you to show me where it says he broke the Sabbath.
1. Jesus did not pick up the bed
2. However he did instruct or 'teach' another to do so, which is almost just as bad 'IF' indeed it was against the laws of GOD to not do so.
3. What you have shown is part of the confusion and also an example just like the washing of hands, it is a tradition, not Torah.

When God gave the Sabbath command to Israel everyone was to remain in their dwellings and rest. the next thing we know someone let them out as long as they didn't go too far. They were told not to carry a load on Sabbath as that would be work. I have read that one of the laws found in the Torah was not to carry anything because that would be working.

Please show in the Torah where it says you can not do that. You can't because it isn't in there.

Judaism 101: Shabbat under Shamor and #39

 

[Tone]

Judaism 101: Shabbat under Shamor and #39

Torah is the "Old Testament"...fyi...

 

[Bob S]

Torah is the "Old Testament"...fyi...

Seems like everyone has a different take on what is and what isn't. And here I always thought Torah means law. God gave Israel the Sinai covenant which contained laws and if the Jews are correct there were 613 of them in that covenant. Besides being the history of the Pentateuch The Old Testament is a glimpse of history from Adam to the beginning of the New Testament.

 

[Tone]

Seems like everyone has a different take on what is and what isn't. And here I always thought Torah means law. God gave Israel the Sinai covenant which contained laws and if the Jews are correct there were 613 of them in that covenant. Besides being the history of the Pentateuch The Old Testament is a glimpse of history from Adam to the beginning of the New Testament.

Even still, Torah is all His instruction from cover to cover. But, to simplify your conversation with @Lulav, I was just pointing out that Rabbinic Judaism isn't it.

 

[Bob S]

Even still, Torah is all His instruction from cover to cover. But, to simplify your conversation with @Lulav, I was just pointing out that Rabbinic Judaism isn't it.

Torah must mean more than the law. I just read yesterday that it included all of what Christians call the Old Testament. Learn something new every day.

My belief system is very simple. Believe and love God who sent His Son to save Israel and all mankind. Believe and love Jesus who has covered my sins with His blood. Allow the Holy Spirit that is within me to be my guide and love my fellow man as Jesus loves each one of us.

I believe we have three rituals, one is to observe communion, second is baptism and the third is marriage.

It isn't what we do it is what Jesus has done for us. If salvation is dependant on how well we know Judaism and practice their beliefs I am afraid the new Earth will be a lonely place.

I love congregational worship, but if the group starts to get legalistic I am out of there. There is an overabundant amount of legalism in our churches today and it is eating the good right out of worship. And speaking of eating I am like Noah, I can eat anything I like. God said it and I believe it.

 

[Tone]

It isn't what we do it is what Jesus has done for us. If salvation is dependant on how well we know Judaism and practice their beliefs I am afraid the new Earth will be a lonely place.

What He has done for you is, as you said, given you His Spirit to empower you to walk as He walked. I don't know anybody here who has said or implied that salvation depends on Judaism.

 

[Tone]

There is an overabundant amount of legalism in our churches today

What is your idea of legalism...following Torah?

"The Hebrew word תורה (torah, Strong's #8451) is usually translated into the English word "Law". Because of this translation there is a great misunderstanding of what "Torah" truly is. "TORAHIS NOT LAW". When we use the word "law" we assume a certain meaning and concept of the word that is not present in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Let us start by looking at the Etymology of the Hebrew word Torahso that we may better understand its true definition. The word Torahcomes from the Hebrew root word ירה (Y.R.H, Strong's #3384), a verb which means "to flow or throw something"."
What is Torah? | AHRC

 

[Hank77]

Hmmm, I don't either. My next thought was that man was not given meat to eat before the flood, but they knew the difference between clean and unclean animals. That must have been because of the ceremonial issue concerning what animals could be used for sacrifice. It was not a concern as to what animal could be eaten. God did not restrict Noah as to what he could not eat. The land had been under water, so there were no fruits and veggies yet. God gave him every moving thing as food. There were no instructions as to not eat those unclean piglets.

And..
From Noah until the law was given to Moses for Israel all men could eat every moving thing and all plants. That would have included Abraham, Issac, etc.

Orthodox Jews still perform the ritual hand washing tradition. It was a Jewish man who I first heard explain and demonstrate what Jesus was referring to.
Video at this link at Chabad. They don't literally wash, just water purification with no soap.
Washing the Hands

Adam Clarke's Commentary
...they considered eating with unwashed hands to be no ordinary crime; and therefore, to induce men to do it, they feigned that an evil spirit, called Shibta שיבתא, who sits on the hands by night, has a right to sit on the food of him who eats without washing his hands, and make it hurtful to him!...

John Gill's Commentary
Eleazar ben Chanac was excommunicated for despising the tradition concerning washing of hands; and when he died, the sanhedrim sent and put a great stone upon his coffin, to show, that he that died in his excommunication, the sanhedrim stoned his coffin (o):
(o) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 19. l.

 

[Kaon]

Thanks for your input, but I totally disagree. Noah was told by God that he could eat all that moved. If God would have meant just clean He would have instructed Noah. You are adding to the passage your interpretation of very easy wording to understand. I am sure you would like to believe otherwise, but your understanding just is not there.

He had to tell Moses because we were so ignorant that we were eating things not considered food, when we should have known better.

God had to sit us down like little ignorant children, and spell out the rules and consequences to us like the hard-headed, wandering children we are. Parents often have to do this - clarify rules to their children because their children fail to meet the context of their expectations the first time.

Likely, Noah followed the food laws very well just like Abel was making sacrifices to the Most High God without being given the Law. Some children know better, and can extrapolate the boundaries of the Law of their parents. When the Hebrews forsook what they knew (that the Most High God wouldn't want former vegans to be ravenous for swine, roaches, rats or other non-food, among other abominations), they gained ignorance and went into bondage.

The Law was part of the instruction for those who had gone so far into ignorance they became slaves. Remember, the Word of God heals the sick; people who are healthy don't need a doctor.


There is a very elegant scientific reason why swine and other unclean animals are not to be considered food by those who want to be children of the Most High God.

 

[Bob S]

The hand washing thing is interesting. Israelites had so many rituals. I am so thankful for the new covenant way of living. I don't understand why anyone would want to live under the defunct Sinai covenant. To each his own.