why can we eat pork?

[OObi]

Thank you Nazaroo. That whole unified church bit was what I was thinking, but I was too confused to put it into words.

 

[intricatic]

Does the expression "purging all meats" indicate that anything put into the body is somehow sanctified as wholesome and healthful? Of course not! Again, Jesus is highlighting the fact that true defilement comes from harboring spiritual uncleanness in the mind. Physical food passes through the purging processes of digestion and is separated from the body, while sin remains as a permeating poison.


This passage in scripture is not a order from YHWH making all things clean.

In Christ, OObi

No, but by your own words here, it does say that what you eat isn't what makes you unclean. Basically, after everything is said and done, the tradition of maintaining the customary dietary laws is demonstrated to be only a provision that's not required, parabolic or not. They may lead to a more healthy lifestyle, but ritual purity is not the same as true purity.

 

[OObi]

No, but by your own words here, it does say that what you eat isn't what makes you unclean. Basically, after everything is said and done, the tradition of maintaining the customary dietary laws is demonstrated to be only a provision that's not required, parabolic or not. They may lead to a more healthy lifestyle, but ritual purity is not the same as true purity.

No.

Just because whatever you eat doesn't make you unclean doesn't mean that whatever you eat is clean. Pork is one of the things that are unclean, and while it doesn't defile you, it is still unclean.

 

[intricatic]

No.

Just because whatever you eat doesn't make you unclean doesn't mean that whatever you eat is clean. Pork is one of the things that are unclean, and while it doesn't defile you, it is still unclean.

Okay, but what were the ritual purity laws for? It's still unclean, but it's no longer seen as a source of impurity. Hence it being refered to as no longer being unclean; not because the meat is unclean, but because it won't defile those who eat it. To what end are you arguing? Semantics?

 

[OObi]

Okay, but what were the ritual purity laws for? It's still unclean, but it's no longer seen as a source of impurity. Hence it being refered to as no longer being unclean; not because the meat is unclean, but because it won't defile those who eat it. To what end are you arguing? Semantics?

I didn't say anything like this. What I said was God made certain animals unclean. You twisted a passage in scripture around to make it look like God changed His mind. I was just saying that isn't true. Because something that is unclean goes in you and comes out again doesn't change the status of whatever it was to clean. In this case pork. Humans are spiritually clean, and a meat is not going to defile them. That doesn't mean eat the meat, that is what you are saying.

And they aren't ritual purity laws, there is only one law, and that is YHWH's law.

 

[intricatic]

I didn't say anything like this. What I said was God made certain animals unclean. You twisted a passage in scripture around to make it look like God changed His mind. I was just saying that isn't true. Because something that is unclean goes in you and comes out again doesn't change the status of whatever it was to clean. In this case pork. Humans are spiritually clean, and a meat is not going to defile them. That doesn't mean eat the meat, that is what you are saying.

And they aren't ritual purity laws, there is only one law, and that is YHWH's law.

I think you need to do more research into what "ritual purity" implies.

I never challenged this idea of the thing itself still being unclean, what I challenged is the idea that we're to uphold ritual purity to maintain spiritual purity. Christ's sacrifice was for something, no? What was that? Does it mean we need to be ritually pure, or truly pure before God through the sacrifice of His son?

 

[OObi]

think you need to do more research into what "ritual purity" implies.

I never challenged this idea of the thing itself still being unclean, what I challenged is the idea that we're to uphold ritual purity to maintain spiritual purity. Christ's sacrifice was for something, no? What was that? Does it mean we need to be ritually pure, or truly pure before God through the sacrifice of His son?

I don't get what you are asking?

Yehusa died so that we could get into heaven. He also came as an example to live right. We are to follow His example. We don't attain salvation by keeping the law, if that is what you mean by pure. YHWH did give us a law however, and He expects us to keep it, and that has nothing to do with salvation.

 

[intricatic]

I don't get what you are asking?

Yehusa died so that we could get into heaven. He also came as an example to live right. We are to follow His example. We don't attain salvation by keeping the law, if that is what you mean by pure. YHWH did give us a law however, and He expects us to keep it, and that has nothing to do with salvation.

He altered the paradigm of what purity is, is what I'm saying. Purity before Christ was considered a ritual justification. Are we justified by ritual after Christ? If not, then what point are you getting at regarding unclean food? Should we still be circumcised to find justification?

You essentially have no point. Clean and unclean food has no weight on spiritual purity, therefore it has no weight on salvation and has no weight as an argument within Christianity. It's no excuse to break other parts of the law which would harm another person; we're to love our neighbor as ourselves. The inward condition is what needs to be addressed, and is through sanctification in the Holy Spirit. But what inward condition was being addressed by ritual purity laws as regards to "clean" and "unclean" foods?

 

[Nazaroo]

Okay, but what were the ritual purity laws for? It's still unclean, but it's no longer seen as a source of impurity. Hence it being refered to as no longer being unclean; not because the meat is unclean, but because it won't defile those who eat it. To what end are you arguing? Semantics?

This is probably the whole point.

It is a FALSE doctrine to say that the meat is no longer 'unclean'.

It is a false statement to say that it is *only* a question of 'ritual impurity' whatever that is chosen to mean.

It is a false statement to say that there is only one sense or one kind of 'impurity' implied in the full range of Holy Scripture.

It is a false statement to say that the only reason God gave food laws was for some 'symbolic' gesture to prepare us for Jesus, like it was some kind of children's game or 'dressing up'.

It is a false statement to say that food laws were only given to Jews.

It is a false statement to say that the food laws are only some kind of 'practice run' or 'training exercise' to prepare Jews for Christianity.

These are all false doctrines, propigated by those who don't want their 'Christianity' or their 'religion' to affect their comfortable and gluttonous and careless lifestyles.

Just wake up!

-----------------------------------------------------------


Here are the uncontestable scientific facts, which compose objective reality for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and even farm animals: Pay attention people.


(1) Every animal has an ideal diet.

The more you stray from that ideal diet, the sicker the animal gets. Every farmer knows this.

Humans are also constrained by biological and physical and chemical laws, put there by God Himself. Pigs don't fly, and humans can't drink poisons.

It is a FACT that 80% of the disease in the 'advanced' (spoiled) West comes from careless or gluttonous eating, rampant drug abuse, absurd levels of sexual promiscuity, and general hedonistic and selfish attitudes. The other 20% can be explained by poverty of the unfortunate ones who are denied basic nutrition, education and medical care.

What does such a society need?
a) For 'Christians' to go around encouraging people to do whatever they want, 'because Jesus said so'???!?!! All is groovy! Eat, drink and be merry!

b) Tell people the truth: That you CAN'T eat anything you want, or do whatever you like. That when you do, you not only destroy your own body, part of the temple of God (if you really are a Christian).

Hmmm.... let's think about it.



(2) The laws of physics and the laws of chemistry and the laws of biology DID NOT CHANGE when Jesus came.

People still die of food poisoning, people and animals still spread parasites and diseases, and people who don't eat properly get sick and die..

(3) Hygene and cleanliness are as important now as they were before Jesus came.

Jesus didn't come to abolish washing, or hygene. His followers may have been lax, and when the Pharisees, who made a show of public cleanliness and ritualized it excessively found fault with Jesus' disciples, Jesus pointed out that they had overlooked more weighty matters of law, and some of their traditions neutralized God's law.

FACT: in the 19th century, after the discovery of 'germs' by Pasteur, and means to stop their spread, the single most important medical advance in the West was...

WASHING YOUR HANDS.

When nurses insisted that doctors wash their hands after handling cadavers and then delivering babies, the mortality rates for births and operations in hospitals dropped through the floor.

Logically we conclude that Jesus did not change the principles of hygene simply because His followers forgot to wash their hands before eating.

(4) Jesus didn't teach His followers that they could eat anything they wanted, and that it didn't matter.

Jesus and the Holy Spirit and God the Father consistently taught that GOOD STEWARDSHIP was a UNIVERSAL principle in ALL things, and this would include not wasting food, not causing needless suffering of animals, not misusing good farmland, poor economic planning etc.

Let's see how the principle of GOOD STEWARDSHIP works:

(1) It would be a sin to convert much needed farmland to grow tobacco for profit when people need food all over the world.

(2) It would be a sin to over-eat, or eat garbage, or be a lazy slothful person, when there is much work needed to be done to provide and sustain quality of life for women and children all over the world.

(3) It would be a sin to cause the needless suffering even of an animal, since God's law provides that one should even 'break the sabbath' by technically doing 'work' in order to save an oxen from a pit.

(4) It would be a sin to raise chickens or any other animal in prison-camp style conditions in order to force them to lay more eggs for profit, and deny the animals any natural quality of life as God intended them to have.

(5) It would be a sin to deliberately and knowingly continue in a practice that even in the New Testament was explicitly forbidden, as a necessary rule of living, such as eating animal blood.

(6) It is a sin to deny all these things, so that you can scarf down your ham sandwich while pigs squeal in slaughterhouses and children starve all over the world.

Enjoy your happy meal.

For the past nearly 2000 years every Christian and Jew understood without even thinking hard about it that GLUTTONY and SELFISHNESS is a SIN.

Then miraculously, in America a 'NEW' Gospel became popular, which said that calling "GLUTTONY" a sin was politically incorrect, and 'hurtful' to the 'victim' of their own filthy crimes.

Now Christians must stand up for the 'rights' of these 'oppressed' criminal/victims, speak soft words that will not disturb their fragile consciences in their soft pillow beds.

Later, when we have to tear out a wall to hoist their 600 lb bodies onto a flatbed truck used as an 'ambulance', the costs to the health care system will be covered by candybar sales-tax.

 

[intricatic]

What was the intent of declaring one animal unclean, and another clean? Was it just for health reasons, and if so, how does this effect spirituality? Afterall, those purity laws were meant to be ritualized, just as circumcision was. Although I don't remember Jesus teaching anything regarding agriculture or ecological economy, Jesus wasn't a politician.

This is probably the whole point.

It is a FALSE doctrine to say that the meat is no longer 'unclean'.

It is a false statement to say that it is *only* a question of 'ritual impurity' whatever that is chosen to mean.

It is a false statement to say that there is only one sense or one kind of 'impurity' implied in the full range of Holy Scripture.

It is a false statement to say that the only reason God gave food laws was for some 'symbolic' gesture to prepare us for Jesus, like it was some kind of children's game or 'dressing up'.

It is a false statement to say that food laws were only given to Jews.

It is a false statement to say that the food laws are only some kind of 'practice run' or 'training exercise' to prepare Jews for Christianity.

These are all false doctrines, propigated by those who don't want their 'Christianity' or their 'religion' to affect their comfortable and gluttonous and careless lifestyles.

Just wake up.

I'm going to ignore the massively supurfluous points in the rest of the above post, though. Considering that most of it is hyperbole.

(4) Jesus didn't teach His followers that they could eat anything they wanted, and that it didn't matter.

Jesus and the Holy Spirit and God the Father consistently taught that GOOD STEWARDSHIP was a UNIVERSAL principle in ALL things, and this would include not wasting food, not causing needless suffering of animals, not misusing good farmland, poor economic planning etc.

Please give an example of Jesus exemplifying these things, and how any of this post relates to the subject being discussed. It sounds to me like human political philosophy being read into scripture.

 

[Nazaroo]

What was the intent of declaring one animal unclean, and another clean? Was it just for health reasons, and if so, how does this effect spirituality?

This is a good question:

The intent of declaring certain animals unclean, was that they ARE unclean. That's the short answer.

Let's explore this in detail:

What do the food-laws implied by Genesis and spelled out by Leviticus entail?


Forbidden:...........The Reason Why...............

Pork (pig, wild bore): omnivore, scavenger; known carrier of trichonosis, ringworm, and about a dozen other disease vectors that affect humans, especially children.

NEW reasons: in a very minimalist and ineffective attempt to control the parasites in pork, bacon and ham, partial chemical curing is used, mainly with NITRITES. these chemicals are known to be highly toxic carcenogens (cancer causing agents).

Rabbits, Hares, Rodents: Omnivores, not true herbivores, rodents (rats, mice, hamsters) are also scavengers and cannibals, often eating their own babies. These creatures eat live and dead insects, decaying animal flesh, and act as vectors to dozens of special and dangerous retro-virises like the hanta-virus group. The Plague, which killed millions of people in Europe is known to have been borne largely by the combination of rodent/flea as vector: rats and mice were allowed to multiply unchecked, causing the epidemic.

Web-footed Birds (Ducks, Geese, Pelicans): Omnivores, scavengers, these aquatic birds are often good hunters, but just as easily, forage carcasses of fish and drowned animals, bird eggs of other species etc. The ocean and beach is a rich source of food material, unfortunately it is also an incubation factory for all kinds of disease and parasites.

Birds of Prey (vultures, hawks, eagles, ravens etc.): Omnivores, carnivores, and scavengers, many of these birds carry germs and diseases their entire lives without any ill effect, such as SYPHILIS and 'FLESH-EATING' bacteria.

ALL SHELL FISH (clams, oysters, crayfish, lobsters): These scavengers are among the most dangerous foods to humans. Living at the bottom of the ocean and rivers, they are also at the very bottom of the food-chain, and become carriers and deposits for deadly diseases, some of the heaviest toxins known, and of course man-made pollution. About 5000 cases of seafood poisoning are reported every year on the seacoasts. These creatures are filthy, and dangerous. An added side-effect of Man's disobediance to God by the new 'strip fishing' (scraping up all the creatures off the bottom of the ocean) is the total destruction of whole ecosystems, which cause REAL (clean) food sources to drastically dwindle and even collapse. Man's raping of the ocean in search of perverse 'delicacies' has destroyed one of our largest and best food resources, the Atlantic Fisheries.

Eels, Snails, most insects, scorpions, spiders etc. : again, (what a surprise), carnivores, scavengers, omnivores and vectors of every kind of disease, and parasite, these dirty creatures make horrible sickness and death a common occurance in many parts of the world.

ANY DEAD THING: carcasses found in the wild, animals that have not been properly killed, or have died of unknown causes. Why? Obvious, if a disease was strong enough to kill an ox, you don't want it. If an animal has been dead an unknown amount of time, you don't want it.

FAT, BLOOD: It is now known that the most dangerous diseases are blood-borne viruses, such as HIV, Hepatitus, Herpes, Malaria etc. It is also a known medical fact that many poisons, especially 'fat-solubles' build up in the fat of an animal. Removing the blood and fat from a sacrificed animal is a necessary and practical way of limiting and eliminating death and disease.


Mushrooms, Fungus, Toadstools: These 'false' plants are not true 'herbs' nor do they properly contain any nutrition of themselves. Because they cannot perform photosynthesis, they cannot convert the sun's energy into a food or energy source. Their only real purpose in the ecosystem is to break down other creatures and things so that they may be converted into food for higher plants and animals. Obviously mushrooms are commercially grown in pig and horse manure, (defication from unclean animals).

None of these things are forbidden by God from taking their proper place in a viable ecosystem. It is Man's abuse of the earth that God has forbidden and it is Man's health that He is concerned with in declaring them as non-foods.

CLEAN FOODS:

Vegetables and herbs (grains/grasses). Fruits, Nuts and seeds, Honey, Butter and milk products (yogurt/cheese) Grains.

CLEAN ANIMALS (allowed as food):

Cattle (cows), Sheep, Deer, Goat, free-range chicken, turkey, grasshoppers (one of the few herbivore insects).

Obviously the Food Laws are meant to limit disease and are essentially health laws. They were necessary in order to protect Israel as a community and nation, and will benefit any community, even if only partially implimented.

The Food Laws are not burdensome or difficult to understand, but basically common sense. They were written in a form which made them easy to carry out, even for stupid or illiterate people.

Naturally, the vast increase in knowledge here in the Last Days affects our understanding of the Food Laws, but this doesn't change their basic wisdom. We can now IMPROVE the food laws, with advice about vitamins, scientific measure of the recommended intake of proteins, carbohydrates and fats, and also excercise programs.

But the Food Laws remain the Wisdom of God for all ages. Man as a species has not significantly evolved enough to tamper with his own diet.

You don't have to be a Pharisee or a genius to appreciate your own health.

Even though the Food Laws are primarily health regulations, like any law or practice that affects the happiness and wellbeing of oneself and others, and also the proper managment of the earth, they DO affect Spirituality.

If a person disobeys the food and hygene laws from simple ignorance, there are still medical and economic consequences which increase suffering in the world.

If a person disobeys the food and hygene laws from wilfull neglect, disrepect, laziness or carelessness, they are ALSO breaking a SPIRITUAL LAW and are obviously not acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. No amount of hand-waving about personal 'freedoms' can change this. Sin is sin.

.


E

 

[Nazaroo]

Although I don't remember Jesus teaching anything regarding agriculture or ecological economy, Jesus wasn't a politician.

The reason you don't remember is possibly because you have not thought sufficiently about the agricultural and ecological ramifications and consequences of Jesus' teaching.

If you believe that Jesus was a mere 'teacher' then perhaps you can assume he had an ignorance of these matters.

If you believe that Jesus was the Unique Son of God appointed to be Lord of Lords, and directly involved in the creation of the world, then you cannot at all assume that He didn't foresee exactly what His profound teachings implied.

It may be for kings to search out the mysteries of a matter (O.T.), but it is the Lord who hid them there.

So it is not only sound, but imperative to take the position that The Lord Jesus, the Messiah, DID teach us essential and profound truths about economics, agriculture, and ecology, and not just abstract 'morality'.

 

[Nazaroo]

Please give an example of Jesus exemplifying these things, and how any of this post relates to the subject being discussed. It sounds to me like human political philosophy being read into scripture.

In the previous post I pointed out that once one takes a certain view of the Person of Jesus and Who He is, one is compelled to adopt axioms which for ordinary humans in ordinary human activities would not be appropriate.

The subtle question of whether or not 'human' political philosophy is being read into scripture is a second and separate issue:

(1) to deal effectively with this question, one must first take care to present convincing definitions of 'mere human' political philosophy.

There is no a priori reason to think that ALL philosophy is merely 'human', or that all 'political philosophy' in particular must be classed as 'human only' and summarily dismissed.

Put another way, Jesus was certainly free to speak politically and philosophically, even if he were a mere 'human'. And secondly, since He specifically came as a 'Teacher' (even accepting the epithet "rabbi") with all that entails, it would seem preposterously artificial to make the assertion that Jesus did NOT speak politically or philosophically.

Let's just test that hypothesis:

First, turning to Luke, we find Jesus specifically addressing important social issues and attitudes in the altercation at the House of a Pharisee. (Luke 7:36-50)

Over in Matthew, it is hard to deny the overt political activity and speech attributed to Jesus on the question of Roman taxes (Matt. 17:24-27).

In John, Jesus actually quotes an obviously 'secular' and sarcastic philosophical saying, then turns it to practical and positive application to work He has set for the disciples (John 4:37-38)

Mark on the other hand, has Jesus use plain syllogistic reasoning to refute Pharisee lies about His work (Mark 3:23-29)

I have chosen unique material from each gospel so that one cannot claim a single source for Jesus' social, political and philisophical discussions. They pervade the entire tradition of Jesus' teaching.


Did Jesus have a lot to say and teach about politics? Yes.

Did Jesus engage in philosophy and debate? Yes.

Did Jesus speak to social issues? Yes.

Did Jesus comment on contemporary political and news events? Yes.

Were Jesus' teaching and attitudes thoroughly modern and sophisticated? Yes.


For instance, Jesus does not hesitate to comment and judge upon politically violent acts of both allies and enemies, and also upon 'natural disasters'.

 

[intricatic]

This is a good question:

The intent of declaring certain animals unclean, was that they ARE unclean. That's the short answer.

Let's explore this in detail:

What do the food-laws implied by Genesis and spelled out by Leviticus entail?


Forbidden:...........The Reason Why...............

Pork (pig, wild bore): omnivore, scavenger; known carrier of trichonosis, ringworm, and about a dozen other disease vectors that affect humans, especially children.

NEW reasons: in a very minimalist and ineffective attempt to control the parasites in pork, bacon and ham, partial chemical curing is used, mainly with NITRITES. these chemicals are known to be highly toxic carcenogens (cancer causing agents).

Rabbits, Hares, Rodents: Omnivores, not true herbivores, rodents (rats, mice, hamsters) are also scavengers and cannibals, often eating their own babies. These creatures eat live and dead insects, decaying animal flesh, and act as vectors to dozens of special and dangerous retro-virises like the hanta-virus group. The Plague, which killed millions of people in Europe is known to have been borne largely by the combination of rodent/flea as vector: rats and mice were allowed to multiply unchecked, causing the epidemic.

Web-footed Birds (Ducks, Geese, Pelicans): Omnivores, scavengers, these aquatic birds are often good hunters, but just as easily, forage carcasses of fish and drowned animals, bird eggs of other species etc. The ocean and beach is a rich source of food material, unfortunately it is also an incubation factory for all kinds of disease and parasites.

Birds of Prey (vultures, hawks, eagles, ravens etc.): Omnivores, carnivores, and scavengers, many of these birds carry germs and diseases their entire lives without any ill effect, such as SYPHILIS and 'FLESH-EATING' bacteria.

ALL SHELL FISH (clams, oysters, crayfish, lobsters): These scavengers are among the most dangerous foods to humans. Living at the bottom of the ocean and rivers, they are also at the very bottom of the food-chain, and become carriers and deposits for deadly diseases, some of the heaviest toxins known, and of course man-made pollution. About 5000 cases of seafood poisoning are reported every year on the seacoasts. These creatures are filthy, and dangerous. An added side-effect of Man's disobediance to God by the new 'strip fishing' (scraping up all the creatures off the bottom of the ocean) is the total destruction of whole ecosystems, which cause REAL (clean) food sources to drastically dwindle and even collapse. Man's raping of the ocean in search of perverse 'delicacies' has destroyed one of our largest and best food resources, the Atlantic Fisheries.

Eels, Snails, most insects, scorpions, spiders etc. : again, (what a surprise), carnivores, scavengers, omnivores and vectors of every kind of disease, and parasite, these dirty creatures make horrible sickness and death a common occurance in many parts of the world.

ANY DEAD THING: carcasses found in the wild, animals that have not been properly killed, or have died of unknown causes. Why? Obvious, if a disease was strong enough to kill an ox, you don't want it. If an animal has been dead an unknown amount of time, you don't want it.

FAT, BLOOD: It is now known that the most dangerous diseases are blood-borne viruses, such as HIV, Hepatitus, Herpes, Malaria etc. It is also a known medical fact that many poisons, especially 'fat-solubles' build up in the fat of an animal. Removing the blood and fat from a sacrificed animal is a necessary and practical way of limiting and eliminating death and disease.


Mushrooms, Fungus, Toadstools: These 'false' plants are not true 'herbs' nor do they properly contain any nutrition of themselves. Because they cannot perform photosynthesis, they cannot convert the sun's energy into a food or energy source. Their only real purpose in the ecosystem is to break down other creatures and things so that they may be converted into food for higher plants and animals. Obviously mushrooms are commercially grown in pig and horse manure, (defication from unclean animals).

None of these things are forbidden by God from taking their proper place in a viable ecosystem. It is Man's abuse of the earth that God has forbidden and it is Man's health that He is concerned with in declaring them as non-foods.

A lot of this is incredibly hyperbolic, again. You miss the point of purity; it may have been healthier for a person (which may have been part of the practical element), but that's besides the point. They're not sinful because they were fulfilled on the cross. What you're saying here is essentially that eating "unclean" foods is as much of a sin as having a skin disease is.


Leviticus 10
8 Then the LORD said to Aaron, 9 "You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the Tent of Meeting, or you will die. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. 10 You must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean, 11 and you must teach the Israelites all the decrees the LORD has given them through Moses."

Leviticus 11
24 " 'You will make yourselves unclean by these; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. 25 Whoever picks up one of their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.
26 " 'Every animal that has a split hoof not completely divided or that does not chew the cud is unclean for you; whoever touches the carcass of any of them will be unclean. 27 Of all the animals that walk on all fours, those that walk on their paws are unclean for you; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. 28 Anyone who picks up their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. They are unclean for you.


Leviticus 12
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

Leviticus 13
47 "If any clothing is contaminated with mildew—any woolen or linen clothing, 48 any woven or knitted material of linen or wool, any leather or anything made of leather- 49 and if the contamination in the clothing, or leather, or woven or knitted material, or any leather article, is greenish or reddish, it is a spreading mildew and must be shown to the priest. 50 The priest is to examine the mildew and isolate the affected article for seven days. 51 On the seventh day he is to examine it, and if the mildew has spread in the clothing, or the woven or knitted material, or the leather, whatever its use, it is a destructive mildew; the article is unclean.

Leviticus 14
43 "If the mildew reappears in the house after the stones have been torn out and the house scraped and plastered, 44 the priest is to go and examine it and, if the mildew has spread in the house, it is a destructive mildew; the house is unclean. 45 It must be torn down—its stones, timbers and all the plaster—and taken out of the town to an unclean place.
46 "Anyone who goes into the house while it is closed up will be unclean till evening. 47 Anyone who sleeps or eats in the house must wash his clothes.

Leviticus 15
31 " 'You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place [tabernacle], which is among them.' "




Leviticus 13
45 "The person with such an infectious disease must wear torn clothes, let his hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of his face and cry out, 'Unclean! Unclean!' 46 As long as he has the infection he remains unclean. He must live alone; he must live outside the camp.

Mark 7
17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body."

20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "


Colossians 2
13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. 16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.


I'm going to have to go with Paul on this one. Sorry.

 

[Nazaroo]

A lot of this is incredibly hyperbolic, again. Not to mention, the key points in scripture that spoke about clean and unclean foods were within the purity laws in the Bible. You strike out legal purity to maintain salvation and it no longer maintains salvation.

I am not at all sure what your point is here.

Mine is very practical. The food laws are designed by God, are excellent guides to healthy living, and part of good stewardship, not simply selfish of purpose or consequence.

Your ideas about 'purity' seem very fuzzy or perhaps artificially 'theological/doctrinal'. Can you simply speak plainly about what you mean by 'purity'? Are you using the term in a derogatory sense, or do you have in mind a kind of 'practice-training' view of the laws about purity as you put it?

You bring in Salvation, although I am avoiding that question.

But if you wish to discuss it, then so be it.

Ultimately, food laws and good stewardship CAN indeed be involved in the issue of salvation, since habitually or chronically living APART from the Spirit of God would imply at least that one's salvation is in question, if it ever existed.

Our lives are finite to begin with; what's more important, that we maintain physical health, or spiritual health? That we be free from skin diseases, or that we rely on Christ as our justification and salvation?

Here you have created a false dichotomy, an illusory 'dilemma'.

There is no dilemma or crisis here. It's as simple as this:

(1) If you keep the food laws because you love God and His truth, and if you keep the food laws because you believe everyone will benefit, and if you keep the food laws because (like Peter) you wish to keep your portion of the Temple of God clean, you are living in the Spirit of Christ, and are being guided by that Holy Spirit.


(2) If you know about the food laws, but ignore them wilfully, because you have disbelieved they were inspired by God, or because you think Paul or Jesus struck them down in New Testament times, you had better double-check your bible and your exegesis and biblical hermeneutics.

(3) If you ignore the food laws because you have devalued them, consider them nothing, or are scorning them for your own traditions (such as the way you were personally brought up, or the culture you were raised in), or because you don't want to have the care, or because your fleshly desires are more important to you than Godly obedience, then you are certainly NOT living in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and are not following the teachings of either the Old or New Testaments.

There is no mystery or dilemma. The only grey area is (2), concerning how we ought to interpret and understand certain New Testament Scriptures. And on this point, I'd say your interpretation is flawed.

Since you are so far unable to show any flaw in a sensible and reverent approach to the food laws, I await some stronger reason than your personal inconvenience to abandon healthy lifestyle practices.

 

[Blank123]

Colossians 2
13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. 16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.


I'm going to have to go with Paul on this one. Sorry.

that whole post was awesome but this alone should be enough to end any and all debate about whether or not its wrong to eat certain foods

 

[intricatic]

In the previous post I pointed out that once one takes a certain view of the Person of Jesus and Who He is, one is compelled to adopt axioms which for ordinary humans in ordinary human activities would not be appropriate.

The subtle question of whether or not 'human' political philosophy is being read into scripture is a second and separate issue:

(1) to deal effectively with this question, one must first take care to present convincing definitions of 'mere human' political philosophy.

There is no a priori reason to think that ALL philosophy is merely 'human', or that all 'political philosophy' in particular must be classed as 'human only' and summarily dismissed.

Put another way, Jesus was certainly free to speak politically and philosophically, even if he were a mere 'human'. And secondly, since He specifically came as a 'Teacher' (even accepting the epithet "rabbi") with all that entails, it would seem preposterously artificial to make the assertion that Jesus did NOT speak politically or philosophically.

Let's just test that hypothesis:

First, turning to Luke, we find Jesus specifically addressing important social issues and attitudes in the altercation at the House of a Pharisee. (Luke 7:36-50)

Over in Matthew, it is hard to deny the overt political activity and speech attributed to Jesus on the question of Roman taxes (Matt. 17:24-27).

In John, Jesus actually quotes an obviously 'secular' and sarcastic philosophical saying, then turns it to practical and positive application to work He has set for the disciples (John 4:37-38)

Mark on the other hand, has Jesus use plain syllogistic reasoning to refute Pharisee lies about His work (Mark 3:23-29)

I have chosen unique material from each gospel so that one cannot claim a single source for Jesus' social, political and philisophical discussions. They pervade the entire tradition of Jesus' teaching.


Did Jesus have a lot to say and teach about politics? Yes.

Did Jesus engage in philosophy and debate? Yes.

Did Jesus speak to social issues? Yes.

Did Jesus comment on contemporary political and news events? Yes.

Were Jesus' teaching and attitudes thoroughly modern and sophisticated? Yes.


For instance, Jesus does not hesitate to comment and judge upon politically violent acts of both allies and enemies, and also upon 'natural disasters'.

But did He justify any of what you're claiming in His name? Or is this a matter of eisegesis? He never talked about agricultural or ecological economy. Please read that one more time: agricultural or ecological economy.

I asked you to provide an example of Jesus exemplifying these things:

Jesus and the Holy Spirit and God the Father consistently taught that GOOD STEWARDSHIP was a UNIVERSAL principle in ALL things, and this would include not wasting food, not causing needless suffering of animals, not misusing good farmland, poor economic planning etc.

 

[Nazaroo]

You have quoted a boatload of scriptures, and since I accept them and their basic content (the ones from Leviticus) and teaching, I presume they are either meant to imply "the whole law" as Paul might phrase it, or else are intended to shock those unfamiliar with them.

So lets skip those for now, unless you think there is something I have missed among the Levitical ordinances.

Instead, lets turn to the NT scriptures you have quoted:

Mark 7
17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body."

20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

Lets endevear NOT to be as dull as the disciples if we can avoid it:

First we may observe that here as in other 'parable-like' teachings, Jesus has a public statement, and a separate 'private' teaching reserved for His disciples. This alone would imply at least some coyness or a hidden agenda beyond the plain and honest teaching. And indeed Jesus regularly reserves the deeper 'Spiritual' meaning of His sayings for His inner circle of followers.

Notice first please verse 20:

"What comes OUT of a man is what makes him 'unclean'...."


​

Obviously this is not to be taken literally. How can I say that? Because if it were meant literally, Jesus would be here talking about human excrement plain and simple. Food is what goes in, and poop is what comes out.

If your claim about all food being 'clean' were meant literally, then what went in would be clean, and logically, what comes out would be equally clean, since what goes in comes out.

Is Jesus also implying that human excrement is also 'clean', and harmless, and can be used as a food? Not at all. Somehow between the going in and the going out, the food is altered, and even if it were 'clean' on the way in, it apparently doesn't remain so, or become clean again after leaving.

But to prevent us from any confusion, Jesus goes on to specifically name what He means by "what comes out of a man", and Jesus is clearly NOT referring to what physically comes out his hind quarters.

He is talking about crimes and sins, and states of being, emotional states, attitudes that are directed outward at other things and other people from inside a man.

These Jesus says, really defile a man, in a far more germaine and important way than forgetting to wash your hands might 'defile' your body or your food.

But if this is really "what comes out of a man", then obviously this is also what Jesus really means when He says "what goes into a man". What goes in comes out. He's not talking about food at all. Evil spirits go into a man, and they are exorcised and taken out. And if what comes out of a man is an evil emotion, attitude, action, then it came out of his heart, not his backside.

Jesus has clearly forced His listeners to virtually ignore what they actually WERE talking about (food, hygene), and talk about the motivations of the heart instead (emotions, human will and desire). There is no doubt that Jesus has separated these 'things that go in and out' into two entirely separate categories. And furthermore, He has totally ignored one category with a dismissive gesture, and drawn all attention to the second category.

And this is the point. Jesus has stopped talking about food entirely. He is not now pronouncing upon whether the food laws should be updated, or struck down as antiquated. He is pronouncing upon the nature and origin of human sin and evil actions. And His first profound statement is that these things come from the HEART and are nothing to do with other human plumbing fixtures.

Far from speaking on the issues raised by the Pharisees about cleanliness, Jesus has refused to discuss them entirely, and pushed right past them with a single sentence. Then He speaks profoundly instead about human sin.

Thus Jesus has not spoken about food laws at all, except to separate them from moral questions as a pointless distraction from weightier matters.

Does this mean Jesus has condemned or struck down the food laws? Not at all. What Jesus has done is what He has ALWAYS done. He ignores the irrelevant issues of His interrogators, and cuts to the HEART of the matter.

To say that Jesus spoke about food laws in Mark here, is like saying that Jesus spoke about oxen when discussing the sabbath.

Its just bad exegesis and commentary.

 

[intricatic]

This is the last I'm posting on this thread. It's absolutely silly and there's very little sense in continuing it. Afterall...

Romans 14
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

...in this chapter, further along, we're told not to bicker about this topic.

 

[Nazaroo]

But did He justify any of what you're claiming in His name? Or is this a matter of eisegesis? He never talked about agricultural or ecological economy. Please read that one more time: agricultural or ecological economy.

I asked you to provide an example of Jesus exemplifying these things:

Jesus and the Holy Spirit and God the Father consistently taught that GOOD STEWARDSHIP was a UNIVERSAL principle in ALL things, and this would include not wasting food, not causing needless suffering of animals, not misusing good farmland, poor economic planning etc.

I am not ignoring your request.
I am answering your questions and issues in sequence.
Those who have seen my other threads know I don't shy away from answering questions.

I am prepared to give you more than a few pages on this if you can wait patiently, (God willing).

I will respond shortly.