Can we eat pork, shellfish and crustaceans? And what about blood in meat?

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I never said there was no sin. Nor did I say there was no law, just no Old Testament law as a set of written rules. The law that we have is on our hearts and it is between us and God.

NT states that it is unchanged OT and NT.

New Covenant Jer 31:31-33 "Law of God written on the heart"
New Covenant Heb 8:6-13 -- unchanged from Jer 31:31-33 verbatim
Eph 6:2 the "first commandment with a promise" is the 5th commandment... still.
Matt 19 list from the Ten commandments ... Rom 13 list from the Ten commandments.. the same.
"What matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19

Rom 13
9 For this,
You shall not commit adultery,
You shall not murder,
You shall not steal,
You shall not covet
,”
and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Matt 19
if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said,
You shall not commit murder;
You shall not commit adultery;
You shall not steal;
You shall not bear false witness;
19 Honor your father and mother;
and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.


(Note: leaves out "you shall not covet" for the sake of the lesson He is about to teach the man)

We're not under "thou shalt not murder."

Note that quote is Jesus -- it is Jesus speaking

No, we are not even under the ten commandments

You have free will - you can believe what you wish.

as given to Moses. Jesus changed the law and gave new directives.

nope.. Matt 5 "do NOT think I have come to change the law"


Our commandment is 'don't even hate your brother.' which is a strengthening of the commandments not replacement of them - so then after Matt 5 "do not hate" we have Matt 19 "do not murder"... the one did not abolish the other

Keeping the sabbath is not part of Christ's law.

Yes ... it is.
"the Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath" Mark 2:28

No wonder then that for all eternity after the cross "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship" Is 66:23

"The seventh day is THE Sabbath of the LORD (YHWH)" Ex 20:10

Less man-made tradition... more scripture please.

Mark 7
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,136
7,245
Dallas
✟874,325.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Actually it looks like Jews are specifically the ones that have no problem at all with meat offered to idols.

Jews know the idols are all fake - gentiles were used to viewing them as real gods.

Blessings to you friend. What about Revelation 2 the message to the church in Pergamum?

“But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭2:14‬ ‭NASB‬‬
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
That's exactly what he said.

Genesis 9
3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.

Just as with green plants - if you eat poison ivy or any other poison plant -- you die.

Gen 1:29 every seed-bearing plant that is upon all the earth -- did not mean "eat poison"


So also in Lev 11 God shows what "is food" - and diseased animals are specifically excluded from being food in Lev 11... along with rats, cats, bats etc.

Prior to Genesis 9 -- in Genesis 1 God gives mankind the fruits and nuts of the Trees "as food"



Depends on your definition of 'every living thing.'

And also "every plant that is upon all the Earth"

And prior to the flood he had Noah bring in a pair of both 'clean' and 'unclean' animals into the ark. So before the flood, there was a separation.
After the flood, all animals were purified

Lev 11 is after flood -- it defines "what is food"
The term "clean and unclean" as it relates to "food" is explained in Lev 11 - but in Genesis 6 and 7 it is used because the reader of Moses had both Genesis and Leviticus 11.

The unclean animals go into the ark by two's because no one was eating them and if Noah did eat them they would instantly be extinct.

By contrast the clean animals went in by 7's because they were also for food. Noah could eat them without driving their species into extinction.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Blessings to you friend. What about Revelation 2 the message to the church in Pergamum?

“But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭2:14‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Rev 2 applies to all Christians and it is somewhat symbolic. But it is true that Balak the king of Moab enticed the Israelites to idol worship using the women of Moab to draw them in -- it went well beyond Paul's statement that Jews know that pagan gods are nothing. At the time of Israel in the wilderness they were easily influenced to actual idol worship so also in centuries afterward they frequently engaged in outright idolworship
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,136
7,245
Dallas
✟874,325.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Rev 2 applies to all Christians and it is somewhat symbolic. But it is true that Balak the king of Moab enticed the Israelites to idol worship using the women of Moab to draw them in -- it went well beyond Paul's statement that Jews know that pagan gods are nothing. At the time of Israel in the wilderness they were easily influenced to actual idol worship so also in centuries afterward they frequently engaged in outright idolworship

True but in this passage the meat sacrificed to idols is directly referenced as unacceptable behavior. Since Paul has already said it is ok for Gentiles to eat meat sacrificed to idols and this passage refers to the sons of Israel I would conclude that this is referring only to the Jews as far as eating meat sacrificed to idols is concerned.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
True but in this passage the meat sacrificed to idols is directly referenced as unacceptable behavior.

I agree. But the reference to Balak is one where they were in full scale idolatry and some folks got killed because of it.

T
Since Paul has already said it is ok for Gentiles to eat meat sacrificed to idols

Paul is speaking to Jewish Christians in 1 Cor 8 who were raised from childhood knowing there is "only one God the Father". As you point out it is possible that he might be referring also to some gentile who had been raised from birth as a believer in the one true God .. but I think that would be quite rare.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: BNR32FAN
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,687
8,039
US
✟1,060,823.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,136
7,245
Dallas
✟874,325.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I agree. But the reference to Balak is one where they were in full scale idolatry and some folks got killed because of it.



Paul is speaking to Jewish Christians in 1 Cor 8 who were raised from childhood knowing there is "only one God the Father". As you point out it is possible that he might be referring also to some gentile who had been raised from birth as a believer in the one true God .. but I think that would be quite rare.

That’s an interesting perspective.
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia


The proof is in the scripture. It clearly shows that there were unclean animals before the flood and that everything was purified such that Noah had to option to eat any animal afterward.
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
True but in this passage the meat sacrificed to idols is directly referenced as unacceptable behavior. Since Paul has already said it is ok for Gentiles to eat meat sacrificed to idols and this passage refers to the sons of Israel I would conclude that this is referring only to the Jews as far as eating meat sacrificed to idols is concerned.


That doesn't make sense. That would mean that there are two sets of rules.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
"The seventh day is THE Sabbath of the LORD (YHWH)" Ex 20:10

Less man-made tradition... more scripture please.

Jesus abolished the law but while he was here he kept it. The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. Keeping the sabbath is not a command under the new covenant. The "sabbath" is now the 'Lord's Day' - Sunday. That's not tradition, that's when the churches the apostles established met.

Mark 7
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”


This was how they treated the law under which at that time they were subject.

Now Paul wrote many times that this law was abolished. Why you want to go back to it in spite of his clear instruction, is keeping to the tradition of men, not the instruction of the Holy Spirit inspired words of Paul and Jesus himself who said that adhering to that old law made the Jews who did it, 'a synagogue of Satan.' He said they were not true Jews. Paul said the only true Jew was one who was a Jew inwardly and who followed Christ and obeyed his commands.

Paul says that going back and keeping one commandment means that you have to keep all of them. So when's the last time you sacrificed an animal? The law wasn't partially abolished, it was utterly and totally nailed to the cross.
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
I don’t write the scriptures I just study them.

Apparently, you didn't study Galatians, Romans and Hebrews and Colossians where Paul states you can't go back to the old law and if you do, you're obligated to obey ALL of those laws. That would include animal sacrifice for remission of sins. The old covenant has been made obsolete.

There is not a dual covenant. We're all under the same new covenant. "One is not a Jew who is one outwardly."
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Jesus abolished the law

By contrast we have this from Jesus -
Matt 5
7 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

The Sabbath was made for man,

Indeed - both the Sabbath and mankind made in the same creation week as God reminds us in Genesis 2:1-3.


Keeping the sabbath is not a command under the new covenant.

Yes.. it is.

NEW Covenant
Jer 31:31-33
31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.




This was how they treated the law under which at that time they were subject.

Now Paul wrote many times that this law was abolished. Why you want to go back to it in spite of his clear instruction, is keeping to the tradition of men, not the instruction of the Holy Spirit inspired words of Paul and Jesus himself who said that adhering to that old law made the Jews who did it, 'a synagogue of Satan.' He said they were not true Jews. Paul said the only true Jew was one who was a Jew inwardly and who followed Christ and obeyed his commands.

Paul says that going back and keeping one commandment means that you have to keep all of them. So when's the last time you sacrificed an animal? The law wasn't partially abolished, it was utterly and totally nailed to the cross.[/QUOTE]
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
There is not a dual covenant. We're all under the same new covenant.

True - and the Gospel is the same OT and NT.

NEW Covenant
Jer 31:31-33
31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God"
 
  • Winner
Reactions: HARK!
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dkh587

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 6, 2014
3,049
1,770
Southeast
✟552,407.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That's exactly what he said.

Genesis 9
3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.
Noah understood that not every green herb was given as food - he was also aware of what animals are clean and unclean. There are poisonous plants that bear fruit with seeds - they are not food.

This verse is not an approval of eating unclean animals.

God said that eating unclean animals was abominable, defiling, and unholy in Leviticus 11. This wasn’t new - Noah already knew that.
 
Upvote 0

Dkh587

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 6, 2014
3,049
1,770
Southeast
✟552,407.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The proof is in the scripture. It clearly shows that there were unclean animals before the flood and that everything was purified such that Noah had to option to eat any animal afterward.
Leviticus 11 is after the flood. Unclean animals never went anywhere. They still exist. Unclean animals were never cleansed.
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
Leviticus 11 is after the flood. Unclean animals never went anywhere. They still exist. Unclean animals were never cleansed.


They distinction between clean and unclean animals was re-introduced in Leviticus, yes. And God cleansed them all again with Christ's sacrifice and the old law was nailed to the Cross.

"What God has cleansed, let no man call 'common.' It took Peter a while to get the message (about 3 1/2 years).
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
Noah understood that not every green herb was given as food - he was also aware of what animals are clean and unclean. There are poisonous plants that bear fruit with seeds - they are not food.

So Noah believed God was lying to him?

This verse is not an approval of eating unclean animals.

It is a statement that says there ARE NO unclean animals at the time. They had been purified by their presence in the ark.

God said that eating unclean animals was abominable, defiling, and unholy in Leviticus 11. This wasn’t new - Noah already knew that.

Noah was told that he could now (after the flood) eat any animal. EVERY animal, they were all clean. Unless you read into that passage something that isn't actually there.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dkh587

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 6, 2014
3,049
1,770
Southeast
✟552,407.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
They distinction between clean and unclean animals was re-introduced in Leviticus, yes. And God cleansed them all again with Christ's sacrifice and the old law was nailed to the Cross.

"What God has cleansed, let no man call 'common.' It took Peter a while to get the message (about 3 1/2 years).

what did Peter say God showed him in his vision in Acts 10:28?
 
Upvote 0