Are Christians allowed to eat pork under the New Covenant?

  • Thread starter LittleLambofJesus
  • Start date

Is it lawful for Christians to eat pork under the NC?

  • Yes! It is now lawful under the NC!

  • No! It is still unlawful under the NC

  • I am not sure

  • Other


Results are only viewable after voting.

Greyy

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
514
214
XX
✟9,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Acts 10:28 certainly removes dietary restriction for those who eat people. "Call no man unclean".

That's obviously not what Acts is about, so why be deceitful in quoting God's word?

But Christ did not die for pigs or shellfish.

It's weird (or really, not weird, given their cultist background) that SDA's randomly decided which commandments of the OT to obsess about. Understanding that Christians are not under OT laws, including dietary laws, does not mean Christ died so we can eat pigs, anymore than young men can have nocturnal emissions without having to spend a day camping outside of town. The OT was full of a lot of laws the SDA chose to ignore. Christ didn't come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. You might check your bible again about how the apostles decided to handle the gentile question.

So they have the same toxins, parasites etc as they did before.

The seemingly random and arbitrary OT dietary laws had nothing to do with levels of "toxicity" of foods.
 
Upvote 0

Greyy

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
514
214
XX
✟9,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Noah and Adam were not Jews. The Jewish ritual purity laws were given to the Jews for specific reasons, to separate them out as a people, and were never binding on all human beings in general.

That's theory, but a lot of their taboos were already held by other tribes. The taboo against pork is an ancient pagan one.
 
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
Acts chapter 10 removed dietary restrictions.

Acts 10:28 certainly removes dietary restriction for those who eat people. "Call no man unclean".

But Christ did not die for pigs or shellfish. So they have the same toxins, parasites etc as they did before.

As many people will admit.

That's obviously not what Acts is about, so why be deceitful in quoting God's word?

interesting appeal to emotionalism. But false accusation and name-calling is not a substitution for logic and compelling argument... as most will admit.


Understanding that Christians are not under OT laws, including dietary laws, does not mean Christ died so we can eat pigs,

On the contrary - claiming that Christ's death on the cross means to you - -that you can eat rat sandwiches is to miss the point of the Gospel on that issue - entirely. As many will admit.
Christ didn't come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

True of "Do not take God's name in vain" - yet still binding
True of "animal sacrifices" which ended as we see in Hebrews 10:4-12

You might check your bible again about how the apostles decided to handle the gentile question.

Yeah Acts 15 - they never mention not taking God's name in vain ... nor did they say anything about honoring parents in Acts 15. Probably because they were so convinced that Christians were "hearing Moses preached every Sabbath in the Synagogues" Acts 15.

Great news though - both Jew and gentile Christians are in the synagogues every Sabbath hearing the Gospel preached by Paul in Acts 18:4


The seemingly random and arbitrary OT dietary laws had nothing to do with levels of "toxicity" of foods.

Is that "creative writing" or did you find a Bible text that actually said it??
 
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 theory, but a lot of their taboos were already held by other tribes. The taboo against pork is an ancient pagan one.

Only if you call the Bible "pagan"

Most Christians do not refer to Genesis 7 pre-flood statement about unclean animals -- as a "pagan text" -- as I am sure even you will agree.
 
Upvote 0

FredVB

Regular Member
Mar 11, 2010
4,509
921
America
Visit site
✟265,293.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
BobRyan said:
True enough - witchcraft eating rats etc very common in some cultures.
In the Bible -- starting before the flood ... God made distinction between clean and unclean animals for mankind - as we see in Genesis 7 it was already known. God calls the eating of mice and rats, unclean animals .. abomination in Isaiah 66 and even says that at the end of the world - people are called to give an account for it.
But as you point out - eating dogs, cats, rats and bats is a strong attraction for some - too strong to give up.

Eating other meats is common otherwise and is a very strong attraction to others as well. But none of it is too hard to give up, every person who has changed to being vegan thought it was too hard to give up before.

But what animal was distinguished for being clean or unclean in the beginning was not for food, when it had not been permitted for it, but for sacrifice only, which was to Yahweh at first. And the animals are not to remain being permitted for food, it is not why they were made.
 
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
LittleLambofJesus said in post #1:

Are Christians allowed to eat pork under the New Covenant?

Yes.

For under the New Covenant, all foods are in themselves okay for all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, to eat (1 Timothy 4:4-5, Romans 14:14,20, Mark 7:18-19; 1 Corinthians 10:25-30, Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 9:10). For under the New Covenant, no meat is defiled in itself (Romans 14:14), all meats are pure (Romans 14:20). Every meat is good, and no meat is to be refused if it's received with thanksgiving to God, for it's sanctified by the Word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:4-5). Let no one therefore judge you regarding what meat you eat (Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 9:10). For the Kingdom of God doesn't consist of what meat we eat or don't eat, but consists of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17). Happy are those Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, who don't condemn themselves over what meat they eat (Romans 14:22). For no meat can defile them (Mark 7:18-19).

-

It's sometimes claimed we shouldn't eat animals which were "unclean" under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Leviticus 11) because they're detrimental to health. But where does it say they were "unclean" because they're detrimental to health? Even pork isn't detrimental to health when it's cooked properly. That's why there are so many healthy old people in China, a nation which thrives on properly-cooked pork. So the dietary restrictions of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law weren't for health purposes, but must have been symbolic, just as, for example, Acts 10:11-15 wasn't for health purposes, but was symbolic (Acts 10:28), and just as the clothing restrictions and hair-cutting restrictions of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law weren't for health purposes, but must have been symbolic.

For people can live long and healthy lives wearing clothing made of mixed fibers (such as cotton/nylon blends), even though this goes against the letter of Deuteronomy 22:11. And people can live long and healthy lives without having to sew tassels and a blue ribbon along the edges of all their clothes, even though this goes against the letter of Numbers 15:38. And people can live long and healthy lives without having to wear only white clothing, and without having to cover their hair with oil, even though this goes against the letter of Ecclesiastes 9:8. And people can live long and healthy lives shaving the sides of their heads and beards, even though this goes against the letter of Leviticus 19:27.

-

The idea of "clean" and "unclean" in the Old Testament wasn't derived from whether or not something was to be eaten. For people and inedible objects could also be "clean" or "unclean" (Leviticus 11:24-40). Instead, it was derived from whether or not something (whether human, animal, or object) was considered by God in Old Testament times to be holy/not guilty or unholy/guilty (Leviticus 11:43-47, Leviticus 5:2b-3, Leviticus 10:10).

Also, someone was made "unclean" simply by touching something "unclean" (Leviticus 11:26). They didn't have to eat it.
 
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
FredVB said in post #365:

Eating other meats is common otherwise and is a very strong attraction to others as well. But none of it is too hard to give up, every person who has changed to being vegan thought it was too hard to give up before.

Man was originally vegetarian, insofar as in the earliest days of mankind described in the Bible, God allowed man to eat only plants (Genesis 1:29). It was only after Noah's Flood that God allowed Noah and his family to start eating animals as well as plants, and they could eat any animal that moved (Genesis 9:3).

Also, in the future, on the New Earth, God will miraculously make it so that all animals will be herbivores (Isaiah 65:17,25).

But beware of the idea (which is sometimes put forth) that Christians must be vegetarians:

1 Timothy 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;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
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.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

6 ¶If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

Here the enforced vegetarianism, like the enforced non-marriage ("Forbidding to marry" in 1 Timothy 4:3), refers to what the future Antichrist will bring upon the world. For he will be a Gnostic (1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7), and Gnosticism forbids eating animals, and forbids marriage.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Yes.

For under the New Covenant, all foods are in themselves okay for all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, to eat (1 Timothy 4:4-5, Romans 14:14,20, Mark 7:18-19; 1 Corinthians 10:25-30, Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 9:10). For under the New Covenant, no meat is defiled in itself (Romans 14:14), all meats are pure (Romans 14:20). Every meat is good, and no meat is to be refused if it's received with thanksgiving to God, for it's sanctified by the Word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:4-5). Let no one therefore judge you regarding what meat you eat (Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 9:10). For the Kingdom of God doesn't consist of what meat we eat or don't eat, but consists of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17). Happy are those Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, who don't condemn themselves over what meat they eat (Romans 14:22). For no meat can defile them (Mark 7:18-19).

There is a theme throughout the Bible that we must obey God rather than man, so we need to be careful not to take something that was only against obeying the laws of men as being against obeying the Laws of God, and there problem here is that you have not been careful to do this.

For example, if you take Colossians 2:16 by itself, it is ambiguous as to whether Paul was saying not to let anyone judge them for keeping God's holy days or for not keeping them, but if we examine the context of views of the people judging them and keep in mind the theme that we must obey God rather than man, then it becomes clear.

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

It is incompatible for Paul to described those teaching obedience to the holy, righteous, and good Laws of God as taking people captive by philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition. Jesus was sinless, so he set a perfect example for how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, which means that it is again incompatible for those teaching people to follow Christ's example to be teaching what is not according to Christ. Furthermore, that would pit the Son against the Father, contrary to when Jesus said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father (John 7:16). Paul described what these elemental spirits of the world are later in the chapter:

Colossians 2:20-23 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

So the Colossians were keeping God's holy days in accordance with God's commands, they were being judged by those teaching human traditions and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, and Paul was encouraging them not to let any man keep them from obeying God. This segues nicely into 1 Timothy 4:1-8 because those teaching obedience to the holy, righteous and good Laws of God is incompatible with the description of what was being taught, but rather the description is perfectly compatible with the teachings that Paul was arguing against in Colossians. They were teaching asceticism and severity to the body, so they were requiring abstinence from foods that God's Law permitted that were created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth (1 Timothy 4:3). Scripture defines scripture, and according to Psalms 119:142, God's Law is truth, so those who know and believe the truth know that clean foods are to be received with thanksgiving and have been sanctified by the Word of God and prayer, but that unclean animals should not be received with thanksgiving and have not been sanctified by the Word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:4-5). In other words, Paul was saying that nothing is to be rejected if it is kosher.

In Mark 7 and Matthew 15, it is again keeping in line with theme that we must obey God rather than man. Jesus was asked why his disciples broke the traditions of the elders and he responded by asking them why they broke the command of God for the sake of their tradition (Matthew 15:2-3). He went on to say that they made void the Word of God for the sake of their tradition (Matthew 15:6), he said that the worshiped God in vain because they taught as doctrines the commandments of men (Matthew 15:8-9), and he called them hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God for the sake of their tradition (Mark 7:6-9), so it is again incompatible to interpret Jesus as hypocritically setting aside the commands of God just a few verses later. The issue was a man-made ritual purity law that said that if something clean came in contact with something that was unclean, then it would become defiled/common/ritually unclean (Mark 7:3-4), so in context they were saying that you could become defiled by eating kosher food with unwashed hands and he was simply starting the opposite and that their emphasis on ritual purity was out of balance with their emphasis on moral purity. His statement at the end of the conversation in in Matthew 15:20 confirms that he was still talking about the issue of whether you could become defiled by eating kosher food with unwashed hands and never jumped topics to God's dietary laws.

The word used in Mark 7:19 for saying that all foods are clean is only used in the context of ritual purity, and never in regard to God's dietary laws, so at most it was saying that all foods are ritually clean. Furthermore, the things that are considered to be food varies from culture to culture, where some people consider things to be food that we would never consider eating. So when you have one Jew speaking to other Jews about food, the only thing that is coming to their minds are the things that God said were food in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, and we take what was being said out of context if we insert the things that we consider to be food. So Mark 7:18-19 is saying that all kosher foods are ritually clean, which was directly counter to the Pharisees who were saying that kosher animals could become ritually unclean.

The topic of Romans 14 is in the first verse, namely it was in regard to handling disputes of opinion, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow His commands. So they might dispute what counts as idolatry, such as whether it was idolatry to eat meat at a community meal when it is unknown whether it had been sacrificed to idols, but they were not disputing whether to obey God's command against committing idolatry. Those who then chose to eat only vegetables were judging those who ate everything, and were in turn being resented (Romans 14:2-3). So some people were of the opinion that food that was kosher had become ritually impure and Paul stated that nothing was ritually impure in itself (Romans 14:14, Romans 14:20), so he was arguing against obeying the opinions of man, not against obeying the commands of our God.

It's sometimes claimed we shouldn't eat animals which were "unclean" under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Leviticus 11) because they're detrimental to health. But where does it say they were "unclean" because they're detrimental to health? Even pork isn't detrimental to health when it's cooked properly. That's why there are so many healthy old people in China, a nation which thrives on properly-cooked pork. So the dietary restrictions of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law weren't for health purposes, but must have been symbolic, just as, for example, Acts 10:11-15 wasn't for health purposes, but was symbolic (Acts 10:28), and just as the clothing restrictions and hair-cutting restrictions of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law weren't for health purposes, but must have been symbolic.

There are night and day differences in the healthiness between eating clean and unclean animals and there are many diseases that have been transferred to humans through eating unclean animals, so is is certainly reasonable to think that has something to do with it, however, the dietary laws are part of God's instructions for how to do what is holy because he is holy, it is about much more than health concerns. Paul said that the Law was spiritual (Romans 7:14), so it has always been intended to teach us deeper spiritual principle of which the Laws are just examples, but if you say that you understand those principles so you don't need to live according to examples of those principles, then you have not actually understood those principles. With Jewish methods of interpretation, commands always had the literal straightforward meaning and no command had a purely symbolic meaning that exempted you from obeying the literal command.

In Acts 10:11-15, it says that all kinds of animals had been let down in his vision, so why didn't Peter simply obey the command to kill and eat by killing and eating one of the clean animals? Why did he object to to doing what the Law permitted him to do? The issue again was a man-made ritual purity law that said that a clean animal that come into contact with something unclean became common (Mark 7:3-4), so all of the clean animals in his vision had become common, and by saying that he had never eaten anything common or unclean, he was saying that he had never broken that man-made ritual purity or God's dietary Law, and by refusing to eat a clean animal as God had instructed, he was disobeying God to obey man. Note that God did not rebuke him for referring to clean animals as clean, but to referring to clean animals as common, so his vision had nothing to do with a change in the status of unclean animals. Peter interpreted his vision three times as being in regard to the status of Gentiles and not once did he say anything about God's Laws being done away with. If he had done so, then they would not have accepted what he said because they would have known that he was not speaking for God (Deuteronomy 13:4-5).

For people can live long and healthy lives wearing clothing made of mixed fibers (such as cotton/nylon blends), even though this goes against the letter of Deuteronomy 22:11. And people can live long and healthy lives without having to sew tassels and a blue ribbon along the edges of all their clothes, even though this goes against the letter of Numbers 15:38. And people can live long and healthy lives without having to wear only white clothing, and without having to cover their hair with oil, even though this goes against the letter of Ecclesiastes 9:8. And people can live long and healthy lives shaving the sides of their heads and beards, even though this goes against the letter of Leviticus 19:27.

It is not good to mistake the mercy of God as permission.

The idea of "clean" and "unclean" in the Old Testament wasn't derived from whether or not something was to be eaten. For people and inedible objects could also be "clean" or "unclean" (Leviticus 11:24-40). Instead, it was derived from whether or not something (whether human, animal, or object) was considered by God in Old Testament times to be holy/not guilty or unholy/guilty (Leviticus 11:43-47, Leviticus 5:2b-3, Leviticus 10:10).

Also, someone was made "unclean" simply by touching something "unclean" (Leviticus 11:26). They didn't have to eat it.

The concept of animals being clean and unclean uses a different word and is completely different from the concept of ritual purity where people and objects can be ritually pure and impure. People and objects went through regular cycles of becoming ritually impure and ritually pure, and it was not a sin to become ritually impure, but animals did not go through cycles of becoming clean and unclean, and it is a sin to eat an unclean animal.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
And why did YAHWEH make it like that for the ancient Hebrew Israelites/Jews?
Not just them, but He told them that if they obeyed Him, He would not send on them all the diseases He sent on the nations / peoples round them.
 
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Soyeong said in post #368:

Jesus was sinless, so he set a perfect example for how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, which means that it is again incompatible for those teaching people to follow Christ's example to be teaching what is not according to Christ.

Note that on Jesus' Cross, for both Jews and Gentiles (John 11:51-52), of all times, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was completely and forever abolished (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18), disannulled (Hebrews 7:18), rendered obsolete (Hebrews 8:13, Galatians 3:2-25, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8), taken away and replaced (Hebrews 10:9) by the better hope (Hebrews 7:19), the better covenant (Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:6-12), the second covenant (Hebrews 8:7, Hebrews 10:9), of Jesus' New Covenant law (Galatians 6:2, John 1:17, Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 9:15), so that the law was changed (Hebrews 7:12).

All Christians, whether Jews or Gentles, of all times, are delivered from the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, and shouldn't keep it (Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Galatians 2:11-21), or have any desire to keep it (Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25). Christians keep the spirit of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 7:6) by loving others (Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:8-10), by doing to others as they would have others do to them (Matthew 7:12).

The New Covenant is a new law (Hebrews 7:12,18-19, Hebrews 10:1-23), consisting of Jesus' New Covenant/New Testament commandments (John 14:15), such as those He gave in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29) and in the epistles of Paul the apostle (1 Corinthians 14:37). These commandments exceed in righteousness the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Matthew 5:20-48). So there's no reason why any Christian should ever want to go back under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 3:2 to 5:26). It was just a temporary schoolmaster (Galatians 3:24-25), a temporary shadow (Colossians 2:16-17), which God set up because of sins long after He'd set up the original promise of the Abrahamic Covenant, and long before He brought that promise to fulfillment in Jesus' New Covenant (Galatians 3:16-29, Matthew 26:28).

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law has been made obsolete by the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:13). For example, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required an Aaronic priesthood (Exodus 30:30), while the New Covenant replaced the Aaronic priesthood with the Melchisedechian priesthood (Hebrews 7:11-28). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required animal sacrifices for sin (e.g. Leviticus 23:19), while the New Covenant replaced these with the one-time sacrifice of Jesus (Hebrews 10).

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law is the Hagar to the New Covenant's Sarah (Galatians 4:21-25). So those people, whether Jews or Gentiles, who try to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law are like Ishmael, Abraham's son by a bondmaid (Galatians 4:22), who was cast out (Galatians 4:30), while those people, whether Jews or Gentiles, who keep the New Covenant are like Isaac (Galatians 4:28), Abraham's son by a freewoman (Galatians 4:22,31), who became his heir (Galatians 4:30b).

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (including the letter of the 10 commandments) written and engraven in stones (2 Corinthians 3:7, Deuteronomy 4:13, Deuteronomy 27:8) was the ministration of death and condemnation (2 Corinthians 3:7,9). For example, see Leviticus 20:10, Exodus 31:14, and Numbers 15:32-36; and contrast these with the New Covenant's John 8:4-11 and Matthew 12:1-8.

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law has been completely and forever done away (2 Corinthians 3:11), abolished (2 Corinthians 3:13b). But it's still able to spiritually blind some people as with a veil from beholding Jesus (2 Corinthians 3:14-16), while the New Covenant is the ministration of the spirit and righteousness (2 Corinthians 3:6,8-9b) which remains (2 Corinthians 3:11b), and which permits Christians to remove the veil and behold Jesus (2 Corinthians 3:16-18, Mark 15:38, Hebrews 7:18-19, Ephesians 2:15-18, Colossians 2:14-17).

But a mistaken spirit of Pharisaism can still sometimes deceive even Christians into thinking they must keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law in order to be saved (Acts 15:1,5), or in order to become perfect (Galatians 3:2 to 5:26). This is a false, cursed gospel (Galatians 1:6-9). For if any Christians are keeping any part of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law thinking they must do so in order to be saved, or in order to become perfect, then Jesus will profit them nothing; they have fallen from grace (Galatians 5:2-8).
 
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

Tangible

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato
May 29, 2009
9,837
1,416
cruce tectum
Visit site
✟59,743.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Never had rat...squirrel and rabbit are pretty good eats though. But not possum...it's kinda stringy and greasy.
I ate a lot of grass cutting rat, "l'agouti" when I was in West Africa. They are a pest that eats rice plants. Pretty good. Tastes a lot like squirrel which is also good, or cottontail rabbit which is equally yummy, especially fried up with biscuits and gravy.

Barbecued raccoon is wonderful, but then what kind of meat isn't wonderful barbecued. Black bear tastes like the best beef roast you have ever had. Monkey tastes like pork, which, of course is delicious. Fruit bat is pretty good, though I think mine were over cooked. Not a lot of meat on them.

I don't have a problem eating any animal, especially when it's presented just as little chunks of meat in a sauce. Apparently herbivores or omnivores that eat primarily vegetation taste better than carnivores.
 
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
Genesis 5:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.

Just as some plants are poison - so also not all animals are "for food" as God points out in Leviticus 11.

So then the "clean vs unclean" animals are differentiated even in Genesis 7 -- before the flood.

And eating rats,cats,dogs,bats condemned by God not just in Leviticus 11 but also in Isaiah 66 speaking of judgment at the end of the world.
 
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
BobRyan said in post #373:

So then the "clean vs unclean" animals are differentiated even in Genesis 7 -- before the flood.

That's right (Genesis 7:2), with regard to making sacrifices (Genesis 8:20). But Genesis 9:3 specifically states that, from that point forward, every animal could be eaten, so long as it moved. And so this would include animals which were sacrificially unclean.

BobRyan said in post #373:

And eating rats,cats,dogs,bats condemned by God not just in Leviticus 11 but also in Isaiah 66 speaking of judgment at the end of the world.

Note that Isaiah 66:17 can refer to those who mistakenly try to sanctify themselves by keeping the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 2:16,21), even though they don't even keep it, but break it regularly (cf. Galatians 6:13).

Isaiah 66:17 doesn't mean the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's food restrictions are still in effect today, or that they will be in effect at the future time of Jesus Christ's Second Coming in Isaiah 66:15-16 (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10).
 
Upvote 0

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Just as some plants are poison - so also not all animals are "for food" as God points out in Leviticus 11.

So then the "clean vs unclean" animals are differentiated even in Genesis 7 -- before the flood.

And eating rats,cats,dogs,bats condemned by God not just in Leviticus 11 but also in Isaiah 66 speaking of judgment at the end of the world.
The problem with your analysis is that there are no unclean plants in Moses law.
 
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

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
The problem with your analysis is that there are no unclean plants in Moses law.
Really @W2L ?
I believe you know much better than that.
If you could find a clean assembly, I believe you would go there for fellowship.

Would you knowingly make a salad of poison ivy , poison oak, and thorns ?
 
Upvote 0

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Really @W2L ?
I believe you know much better than that.
If you could find a clean assembly, I believe you would go there for fellowship.

Would you knowingly make a salad of poison ivy , poison oak, and thorns ?
What do i know better? Im just saying that ive never heard of unclean plants. And not all unclean animals are actually poisonous. The whole argument sounds wrong to me.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
What do i know better? Im just saying that ive never heard of unclean plants. And not all unclean animals are actually poisonous. The whole argument sounds wrong to me.
"know better" than to eat the plants described here - poison ivy, poison oak and thorns...

Understood = All of society is unclean. All society is pernicious. (according to Galatians, Ephesians, and Revelation, and the rest of Scripture) ....
This makes it a difficult life for anyone seeking the TRUTH. (as I believe you are constantly seeking the truth, and have been for a long time).

Have you heard of poison ivy, poison oak, and rose stems with thorns ?

======================================
(oh, btw, just noticed re-reading quote - I did not notice the "argument' in question that you mention, so it might be right or wrong. )
It is true , potentially, that not all unclean animals are actually poisonous.

I think that doesn't matter.
 
Upvote 0

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
"know better" than to eat the plants described here - poison ivy, poison oak and thorns...

Understood = All of society is unclean. All society is pernicious. (according to Galatians, Ephesians, and Revelation, and the rest of Scripture) ....
This makes it a difficult life for anyone seeking the TRUTH. (as I believe you are constantly seeking the truth, and have been for a long time).

Have you heard of poison ivy, poison oak, and rose stems with thorns ?

======================================
(oh, btw, just noticed re-reading quote - I did not notice the "argument' in question that you mention, so it might be right or wrong. )
It is true , potentially, that not all unclean animals are actually poisonous.

I think that doesn't matter.
It doesnt matter because all things are pure as Paul declared.
 
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