Eating pork and shellfish is a grave sin.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

The laws about health were in place long before the Children of Israel were thought of. At the time of Noah God took less of the unclean into the ark than the clean.

Gensis 7:2
"Take with you seven [1] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate"

This shows that they had unclean as well as clean animals and beasts.

Then later when Moses was shown by God more information about what was clean and unclean. God does not change. So when we come to a passage in the New Testament that some say now God has said we can eat unclean food. Then as God does not change it must then be our interpretation of that passage that is wrong. God cannot change. Unclean is unclean forever.

Symes you are a tiring one. This has been refuted by me and deu58 in other threads. The clean and unclean designation was only for sacrifices at the time. They didn't even eat meat before Noah. When the ark landed God gave Noah EVERY living thing to eat. This is what the Bible says on the matter. There was not a food designation until the Law, and that Law was nailed to the cross with Christ. You are wrong on this and the Bible proves it so. Christ said that NOTHING that goes into a man's mouth can defile him, there is Peter's vision, and 1 Timothy as well. The New Testament confirms what we have been saying to you and yet you refuse to see it. You cannot show one place in the New Testament where we are told that we are still under food laws nor where there is any line drawn between parts of the Law.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Some other thoughts:

The food prohibitions by God came into place long
before science showed humans that there were
problems with raw pork and red tides infected
shellfish.

Also, if we had followed these rules, we certainly
would NOT have mad cow disease, ie, by feeding cows
to other cows in the first place.

Once again, we learn the hard way that God's way
is the only way.

So God's way was to give Noah every living thing to eat. There was no food restriction before Noah. Why is this not God's way? Why do you pick and choose what is God's way and what is not?

 

[1by1]

I do not think that you can call yourself a Christian if you laugh at and dismiss the word of the Lord.

I'm sorry, but I find that part of your post highly offensive. I could turn your words right around on you because you apparently are dismissing the word of the Lord, too. It has clearly been pointed out to you where the Scriptures state that NO FOOD is unclean, and that we are NOT to call something unclean when God has declared it clean. Not only that, but Jesus Himself said it was NOT what went into the body that made one unclean, but rather what came out of it. Personally, the fact that Jesus said that settles it in my heart.

I would highly advise you not to use such criteria as observed in your above statement in determining if we are Christians, because that same statement can be used against you. And do not presume that I laugh at the word of God.

 

[Symes]

You cannot show one place in the New Testament where we are told that we are still under food laws nor where there is any line drawn between parts of the Law.

You cannot show me one place in the New testament to say that we are not under the food laws. God cannot change. Are you really serious in saying that from say the birth of Christ that pigs are now clean. How can God change things from unclean to clean? He never did and never will.

 

[AndOne]

How can God change things from unclean to clean? He never did and never will.

He certainly can - he did it to me and for me - at the crucifiction - Praise His Holy name!

 

[AndOne]

Behe's Boy,

If you or any others have an explanation about why you do so, I will be happy to read it. But so far I have not been given, what I think, is a proper explanation. Or at the very least let's have an open discussion about the matter.

I gave no explanation but the Word of God - Romans 14 and Acts 10. If that is not proper enough for you - I don't know what else to say or do.

You are kidding yourself if you think that your post was meant to be an open discussion - because although you are quick to throw out judgements based upon the Levitical Law - you say that arguments based upon New Testament scripture are not acceptable. That is not an open discussion.

 

[tinkerbell]

The vision was Peter's and if you read in Acts 10:24 on the vision really has nothing to do with clean and unclean meat. If we look at the visions God gives in the BIble, they are not literal. It is the same here - God usues something Peter can relate to to get His point across that all men are equal.

 

[AndOne]

The point of the vision was indeed to show that men are equal - but given Romans 14 one can logically conclude that the vision's elements are based on truth.

 

[AndOne]

Acts 10:24 addresses Cornellius gathering his family together - it does not address the vision at all.

 

[tinkerbell]

Acts 10:24 addresses Cornellius gathering his family together - it does not address the vision at all.

No, not just Acts 10:24 - read Acts 10:24 on - through the end of Acts 10.

Romans 14 is a great text!! However the point of it is not to prove docterinal truth or untruth. (Historically, people who were considered religious heads of the "community" were able to eat the meat that was used as sacrifices to idols, while others could only eat the vegetables. This text could quite possibly be refering to that.) This text is emphasizing that we must not judge someone else based on how they practice their faith. For example - people in this thread have differing opinions on clean and unclean meat. It is not our place to judge them or look down on them for their beliefs. God knows the heart. He knows where each person is at spiritually. There will be people in heaven who eat pork and there will be people in heaven who don't - there are so many more important and pressing issues to consider. I think that is the whole point of Romans 14.

 

[Salvatore Gonzales]

I'm sorry, but I find that part of your post highly offensive.
...... And do not presume that I laugh at the word of God.

I think Paul warned us in Gal 5:

"Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other...."

In reading *all* the writings of Paul, if one has
made a spiritual promise to God (which can
include dietary restrictions among others),
then one is to honor this. If it is done to
glorify God and not done out of mindless
adherence to tradional, then it is a good thing.

 

[Salvatore Gonzales]

So God's way was to give Noah every living thing to eat. There was no food restriction before Noah. Why is this not God's way? Why do you pick and choose what is God's way and what is not?

See my previous post. It is a personal restriction
and promise I have made that increased my faith
in God. I did it to glorify God.

It just happened to have added benefits in the
physical world. After all, would you eat raw pork,
red tide tainted shellfish, or beef that you knew
had consumed feed containing madcow flesh?
Of course, not. You would tempt ill health.

 

[Vollkommen Warrior]

"Okay so if God's laws are only for the Jews then why do Christians even bother with the Old Testament?...."

I get your direction. Bottom line: If we lived in a time b4 Jesus, that argument would be valid. When Jesus came to town EVERYTHING changed. Even Passover is supposed to be celebrated differently. The new covenant goes above and beyond law. It so happens that we live in the time A.D. and that's where we are now. You can get there with the law but it is much more harsh and secondly, the fact the Christ has come - it is time for the Jews to acknowledge and accept him. Without this, they are rejecting God himself.

 

[Salvatore Gonzales]

.... it is time for the Jews to acknowledge and accept him. Without this, they are rejecting God himself.

There was a division of labor when Jesus left
things to the disciples on Earth. Some were to
mininster to the uncircumcised (gentiles, ie, you
and I) and to the Jews. Paul wrote about the
special status of the Jews in the NT.

If Jesus was God's Word made manifest on
Earth, what was His mission? Was it to spread
God's Word and glory for people to follow and
live by; or was there some other purpose?

Would replacing the Star of David in the Temples
with Crosses convince you that they were
glorifying God? What of the Churches with
Crosses who do *not* glorify God?

If God's Word is Law what is the litmus test
to determine if someone is "rejecting God"?
Is it simply saying "Jesus is Lord"? I thought
there was more to it than this.

 

[Symes]

It has clearly been pointed out to you where the Scriptures state that NO FOOD is unclean, and that we are NOT to call something unclean when God has declared it clean.

1by1
How many times do I have to say that this vision that Peter had was to tell the Jews that the Gentiles were not unclean. It was not about food. It was about accepting the Gentiles as fellow Christians in Christ.

 

[Symes]

Acts 10:17-23
"While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon's house was and stopped at the gate. 18They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there.
19While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Simon, three[1] men are looking for you. 20So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them."
21Peter went down and said to the men, "I'm the one you're looking for. Why have you come?"
22The men replied, "We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to have you come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say." 23Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests."


.
It tells us here about the meaning of the vision. It tells us that it was about "the men sent by Cornelius"

This is what the vision was about. Not once do any of the verses talk about eating unclean food. It was about Peter going to "Cornelius the centurion" who as the Jews considered unclean. This is as simple as it gets. Twisting the words of Scripture is not right. Look beyond the few words of the vision and it explains to us what the vision is about. I hope now that it will finally put an end to this concept that we can eat unclean foods.

At first Peter did not know what the vision meant until they knocked on the door and said who they were.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Symes you have been refuted on this point may times. You repeat yourself so much that I am typing up a list of cut and paste responses so that your apostasy will be quick and easy to prove. The vision had two meanings. If you missed I will gladly link the two or three times I correct you myself. We are not under the Law Symes, not under any of it. Stop with the bondage already. You should try grace, it is free for the asking!

 

[msjones21]

Oh wow! I haven't even read through this entire thread because I am shocked by the OP! Talk about living like a Pharisee. Let's not be legalistic here, folks. The Bible says, in the NT, that the Judaic laws regarding your eating habits are done away with. Do not judge others for what and how they eat, but if what you're doing causes your brother to stumble do not do it. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not do away with it; however, laws concerning eating and dressing were done away with because those were the Judaic laws and Jesus came for the Jews and the Gentiles alike.

Bottom line, if you want to be legalistic and not eat pork or shellfish then that is your choice, but don't flame other Christians for not living under the OT law which isn't for the Gentiles anyway.

 

[1by1]

1by1
How many times do I have to say that this vision that Peter had was to tell the Jews that the Gentiles were not unclean. It was not about food. It was about accepting the Gentiles as fellow Christians in Christ.

Fine. Let's leave out the story regarding Peter's vision. God forbid, let's even put aside what Jesus said for a moment. How do you explain Paul's words that he was convinced that NO food was unclean?

I really have no interest in debating this issue. It is completely settled in my heart. The point of my post was to respond to Kosh's insinuation that people like me are laughing at and dismissing the word of the Lord. I find that highly offensive as I DO NOT laugh at God's word, yet I believe NO FOOD is unclean. (Don't even bother to try to tell me differently. It won't do any good.) But according to Kosh, I surely am not a true believer. Interesting how he is trying to place a yoke of bondage on me, and presuming that I am not a true believer when he (she - ?) is incapable of making that determination considering s/he knows absolutely NOTHING about me.

I also think it is odd that after having the Bible for so long, that Christians don't THINK about what they are reading, and take note of the fact that Paul said he is convinced that NO FOOD is unclean. If, as Christians proclaim, the whole of the Bible is inspired by God, then would that not mean that Paul's words were inspired by God? And if so, would that not mean that what Paul was believing and teaching was in fact the genuine, God-inspired truth? Otherwise, why didn't anyone correct him in his ignorance? So why not believe what Paul said? Why, after 2000 years, are Christians still placing themselves in bondage to rules and regulations that no longer apply to us?

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

1by1: Take heart, we refute Symes almost daily on the meaning of the vision that Peter had in Acts. We explain the dual meaning and how it confirms Christ's words, and that if it really had nothing to do with food then God would not have rebuked Peter when he took it that way. We also explain that it is further confirmed in 1 Timothy where it is written that all creatures God created are good and nothing is to be refused if accepted with thanksgiving and prayer as the food we eat is sanctified by God through our prayer.

Symes apparently thinks that God's grace is not enough for us and that the works of the Law are still necessary although not all of them. Oddly enough for all he denies to be a believer in Ellen G White, the parts of the Law he says we have to follow are exactly what she taught should be followed and he teaches to follow them in the same manner. In this, according to Paul, Symes is teaching that Christ's death was in vain!