Dietary Laws

[Martin Marprelate]

Again, sorry to hear you think that.

And I'm sorry to hear that you're sorry to hear that. The NKJV uses the same text as the KJV, which seems to be your preferred translation.

I would never "prefer" such a thing as that.

Even worse than that of the NKJV's abomination of a translation. It is simply a false translation, and even worse, it adds words not found present in the koine Greek text.

Mar 7:18 και λεγει αυτοις ουτως και υμεις ασυνετοι εστε ου νοειτε οτι παν το εξωθεν εισπορευομενον εις τον ανθρωπον ου δυναται αυτον κοινωσαι
Mar 7:19 οτι ουκ εισπορευεται αυτου εις την καρδιαν αλλ εις την κοιλιαν και εις τον αφεδρωνα εκπορευεται καθαριζον παντα τα βρωματα

Please show me, from these two koine Greek texts where the words (translated to) "Thus he declared all foods clean" exist? I will be more than willing to show you that such phrasing does not exist there.

The difference between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text is simply one word. The T.R. has καθαριζον indicating that it is the excretion of the food (or the latrine into which the food is excreted), which purifies it, while the C.T. has καθαριζων, suggesting that it is the Lord Jesus who has purified the food. By quoting the NKJV originally, I was showing my support for the T.R. rendering. However, you might like to consider Acts 10:15 in this context.

It is rather simple:

Mar 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

Plain English, no?

Indeed so, if you are a 16th or 17th Century Englishman. The NKJV has, "So He said to them, are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods."
The two main differences are the addition of the word 'thus' which the NKJV adds to help the meaning, but places in italics to show that it is not in the original; and the translation of καθαριζον as 'purifying' rather than 'puging.' FYI, the KJV translates καθαριζω as 'purify' 3 times, 'cleanse' 16 times, 'make clean' 5 times and 'purge' 3 times. In the Passive, it is translated 'be clean' 3 times.

But the main point is that the Lord Jesus says, "Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him." Food and drink cannot defile us, which is why the apostle Paul says, 'For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit' (Rom. 14:17).

 

[GentleGospeller]

And I'm sorry to hear that you're sorry to hear that.

Your prerogative to use a text which has serious issues (for another thread of course).

The NKJV uses the same text as the KJV

It doesn't actually.

, which seems to be your preferred translation.

It is not about 'preference' of 'mine' (as if "I" get to decide what is and or is not God's words; a disgusting thought). The words either are, or are not, the words of God. It is that simple.

However, in your case, it does sounds like 'preference', since you are claiming to reject that which has been received by the church, for that which is rejected by the church, and accepted by critics, who sit in judgment over God's words, which was never their place to do.

The difference between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text is simply one word.

Which makes all the difference in the world, since man lives "not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live." In the matter of taking away from or in adding to, God's words, the scriptures give sound warning, even from the begging with Eve, and the devil.

The very context was warning all:

- Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
- Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
- Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
- Mar 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
- Mar 7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
- Mar 7:12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
- Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

God's words & ways, vs man's (ie. the devil's ideologies carried out in / by them) words & ways.

The T.R. has καθαριζον indicating that it is the excretion of the food (or the latrine into which the food is excreted), which purifies it

The living text (Act. 7:38; Heb. 4:12, &c.) received by the living church (1 Pet. 2:5), teaches

- Mar 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
- Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

- Mar 7:18 και λεγει αυτοις ουτως και υμεις ασυνετοι εστε ου νοειτε οτι παν το εξωθεν εισπορευομενον εις τον ανθρωπον ου δυναται αυτον κοινωσαι
- Mar 7:19 οτι ουκ εισπορευεται αυτου εις την καρδιαν αλλ εις την κοιλιαν και εις τον αφεδρωνα εκπορευεται καθαριζον παντα τα βρωματα

That which leaves the body, after digestion, is simply "dirt" (Jdg. 3:22). Defilement is a spiritual thing, and is of the mind / heart / spirit (Mar. 7:18-23). Thus the eating of the "bread ["αρτους", "αρτον", a dietary 'clean' food allowed by God to be eaten, even from the beginning, Gen. 1:29]" (Mar. 7:2,5) "with unwashen hands" (Mar. 7:5) could not ever "defile" anyone. That which is 'purged' is the body / colon (the person) from the food eaten, since it comes in and goes out of the physical body (man is likened to a "worm", dirt in and dirt out). It reads, "καθαριζον παντα τα βρωματα" (purging all the foods), and the question is from where? The immediate context shows that the dietary 'clean' food ('bread') eaten (Jesus is speaking to Jews) is passed through the body, from the entrance (G1531; "εισπορευομενον", V-PNP-NSN) (mouth) and out the exit (anus) in going to the toilet, thus "purging" (G2511, "καθαριζον"; "V-PAP-NSN") the body of such. It is in parallel with itself.

, while the C.T.

A very dangerous 'text' with many subtractions & additions; and rejected by the living church of God.

has καθαριζων

So, the 'C.T.' has both taken away "καθαριζον" and added "καθαριζων", which changes the ending by a single letter, from 'omicron' to 'omega', lifting itself above the true word of God.

, suggesting that it is the Lord Jesus who has purified the food.

The food is already a 'clean' (sanctified by the word of God) food being eaten. It was just bread. There was no cleansing of it needful, since the word of God, even from the beginning, already sanctified the specific plant life to be eaten by mankind - Gen. 1:29. What the NKJV (by its translation, and foot note, "Mark 7:19 NU sets off the final phrase as Mark’s comment that Jesus has declared all foods clean.", ESV, NIV, and other such texts do is violate the regulations of God in diet here, and substitute (antichristos, in the place of the anointed words of God) their own dietary plans, and claim Jesus is the author of their ideology / practices, when it is the "doctrines of devils" (1 Tim. 4:1); whom, even in the beginning did the same, by tempting Eve at the tree forbidden by God to be eaten.

- 1Ti_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;

By quoting the NKJV originally, I was showing my support for the T.R. rendering.

The so called 'NKJV' does not entirely follow the same 'T.R.' as the King James Bible, and this is demonstrated from the OT and NT texts, and many examples could be provided, but this is not the subject of the thread. Any may do a quick search online to begin to see distinctions.

However, you might like to consider Acts 10:15 in this context.

Acts 10(-11, which cannot help you here, and supports what I am saying) is not the context of Mar. 7. Matthew 15 is the same context of Mark 7. - Matthew chapter 15 1611 KJV (King James Version)

Indeed so, if you are a 16th or 17th Century Englishman.

I am not, and never will be, and neither are you. The point is an 'imaginary "if" (your word)' and a waste of mental time in pretending.

The NKJV has, "So He said to them, are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods."

The 'NKJV' is not a '16-17th century' text and never will be.

The two main differences are the addition of the word 'thus'

No, only in the 'NKJV', is the word "thus" added (and adds a footnote, "Mark 7:19 NU sets off the final phrase as Mark’s comment that Jesus has declared all foods clean."), but in the 'ESV' (which you also cited) it says, "(Thus he declared all foods clean.)", so it is not merely the word "thus".

which the NKJV adds to help the meaning,

No, the 'NKJV' does not add the word, since it is just a text (based on not the same 'T.R.' as the King James Bible) and cannot choose as mankind can, but the translators of the 'NKJV' adds the word "thus", and footnote, and leads the reader to make incorrect conclusions, violating the word of God in diet and substituting mankind vain traditions in dietary practices, and claiming it is authoritative from God, when it is no such thing.

but places in italics

Sorry, but the 'italics' in a 'NKJV' are a mixed bag (see Heb. 9:12 for instance).

to show that it is not in the original

"the original" what?, autograph? How would you know? Have you seen the original autograph? I ask this, knowing full well the answer, since the translators, whether for the King James Bible, or the recent committees, only have copies of copies to work from, and their copies will vary, from small to large differences, depending on where those texts came from.

; and the translation of καθαριζον as 'purifying' rather than 'puging.'

Again, why would a food (bread, already sanctified by God's word) need to be 'purif[ied]', whether it entered and left a body (mankind) or not? It is silly to go this route.

FYI,

Do you take me for a fool, idiot, or imbecile? Do you think I do not have access to the same, or more, information than you do? Please, drop the condescension.

 

[GentleGospeller]

the KJV translates καθαριζω as 'purify' 3 times, 'cleanse' 16 times, 'make clean' 5 times and 'purge' 3 times.

The exact word and ending, "καθαριζον", is found only in the koine Greek NT, 1 time - Mar. 7:19

The exact word and ending, "καθαρίζων" is never found in the koine Greek NT TR.

The exact word and ending, "καθαρίζω" is never found in the koine Greek NT TR.

Here are the exact words and endings:

- "καθαρισθητι" - Mat. 8:3; Mar. 1:41; Luk. 5:13
- "εκαθαρισθη" - Mat. 8:3; Mar. 1:42; Luk. 4:27
- "καθαριζονται" - Mat. 11:5; Luk. 7:22
- "εκαθαρισθησαν" - Luk. 17:14,17
- "εκαθαρισεν" - Act. 10:15, 11:9
- "καθαριζετε" - Mat. 10:8, 23:25; Luk. 11:39
- "καθαρισαι" - Mat. 8:2; Mar. 1:40; Luk. 5:12
- "καθαρισον" - Mat. 23:26
- "καθαρισωμεν" - 2 Cor. 7:1
- "καθαρισας" - Act. 15:9; Eph. 5:26
- "καθαρισατε" - Jam. 4:8
- "καθαριση" - Tit. 2:14; 1 Jhn. 1:9
- "καθαριζει" - 1 Jhn. 1:7
- "καθαριει" - Heb. 9:14
- "καθαριζεται" - Heb. 9:22
- "καθαριζεσθαι" - Heb. 9:23
- &
- "καθαριζον" - Mar. 7:19

Other uses in Origen's Greek OT Hexapla - Kata Biblon Wiki Lexicon - καθαρίζω - to purify (v.)

Notice,

- the Majority of all Greek mss. including K, M, U, V, Y, Theta, Pi, Xi,
- the Diatessaron,
- the Old Latin (purgans) (see - 11th line (1st & 2nd words in latin) - "exiit purgans" (page 600) - https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/600 )
- Jerome's Latin (corrupted vulgate) ("exit purgans")
- as well as a, air, b, c, d, f, ff2, l, n, q
- and the Textus Receptus

have "καθαριζον", not "καθαριζω" or "καθαρίζων".

That which does have "καθαρίζων" are the two most emended texts,

- Sinaiticus (Codex 'aleph'; 3rd column, 11th-12th line) - https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/...chapter=7&lid=en&side=r&verse=19&zoomSlider=0
- and
- Vaticanus (Codex B) - Mark, Chapter 7 (Codex Vaticanus) — Theosis Library

Neither of which are early mss, but later corruptions. More elsewhere as needful.

In the Passive, it is translated 'be clean' 3 times.

All irrelevant to the actual text of Mar. 7:19 and case / ending therein in the GNT TR.

But the main point

The point is, what the text Mar. 7:19, in context, actually says, not what others decide they needed to change it to to suit the god of their bellies.

is that the Lord Jesus says, "Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him."

Mat 15:15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.

Mat 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Food and drink cannot defile us

"defile" is a spiritual thing. The Pharisees had a gross misunderstanding in regards the things Gentiles had touched, or been associated with, and their idolatry. The question of the OP is not about whether "food and drink" defiles a person. The OP is about whether the Bible / God sanctifies certain things for "food and drink", and where those things may be found. The Bible (scripture) / the LORD God (JEHOVAH Elohiym) never sanctifies the eating of 'pig' (swine), shellfish, &c. Thus persons in this thread are calling those unclean / abominable things as "food", when God / Bible never declared such as "food". The same goes for alcoholic drink.

, which is why the apostle Paul says, 'For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit' (Rom. 14:17).

You have a misunderstanding about Rom. 14.

What I have seen, so far in this thread, is various persons that think they may eat / drink all manner of things never sanctioned by God's words, go from the context of one verse / passage (Mar. 7 & Mat. 15) to things totally unrelated (Act. 10; Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 8-10). They do as the JW do, jump all over the place instead of just reading the words in their place.

 

[GentleGospeller]

If I "deliver a speech" ...

Irrelevant. They didn't "deliver a speech". They delivered letters ("delivered the epistle", which "they (Jerusalem council) wrote"), to which the people at Antioch read for themselves ("Which when they (church at Antioch) had read, they rejoiced for the consolation."), and which Judas & Silas confirmed ("And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them."), having been present in Acts 15 Jerusalem council.

 

[JonC]

Nope. That is just 'you' again.

No, it is not me. In Genesis 9:3 God tells Noah "every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all thing".

The dietary restrictions are a part of the Old Covenant (between God and Israel beginning at a soecific generation and concluding on the Cross as this covenant was fulfilled).

You are ignoring too much Scripture to be taken seriously.

That said, many are of "a weaker faith". You are. Do not violate your conscious. If you and I were eating out I would refrain from exercising my freedom for your sake.

 

[JonC]

The (real) English language is richer than you can possibly imagine.

At one time it was a rich language (I studied literature for some time at university, particularly British and Irish literature). I know the richness of the language.

But I also know that much of that richness has been lost to antiquity (not only in Europe, it is lost here as well).

I was surprised that you were unable to cope with idioms and turns of phrases, even if just introduced to a saying you with which you had no previous experience.

In retrospect I should not have been surprised. I made an assumption based on your age. Americans of your generation retained a level of literacy that seems to be lost on you. In many ways Europe had led the decline with the Americas following. But we are pretty much on the same level today.


I can spell "British" (the modern standard). My phone seems to prefer "Brittish" (an obsolete soelling used in the 18th century).

My phone also prefers "Hod" for "God" (I probably fat-fingered and hit "H" at one time, but my phone remembers).


I actually enjoy British humor (not the slap-stick type but the dialogue). Same with American humor. I prefer dry humor.

We have the same diversity here. It is difficult for me to understand some dialects in Louisiana. Where I currently live we have geechee gullah culture as well. They speak English, but I cannot understand it very well.


But my point is you argued for several posts that "sinfully wrong" (an idiom where I live) must mean I was calling your post sin.


How can this be understood except that you lack an understanding about phrases having a meaning different from the combined words?

 

[Mike B]

GentleGospeller:

Irrelevant. They didn't "deliver a speech". They delivered letters ("delivered the epistle", which "they (Jerusalem council) wrote"), to which the people at Antioch read for themselves ("Which when they (church at Antioch) had read, they rejoiced for the consolation."), and which Judas & Silas confirmed ("And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them."), having been present in Acts 15 Jerusalem council.

You are correct...no matter if Paul read it to them, or they read it themselves, the message was delivered.

STILL, you choose to ignore my question, stated again, below. If you are unable to answer, then own up
to it and say so.

If a new Christian came to your church, and was wanting to become a member, how would you Scripturally
explain to them that they needed to go home and toss out half of the food in their fridge, and completely change
their diet (as in no more Jimmy Dean sausage) in order to conform to the Old Testament dietary laws?

A new Christian reading their Bible will see that: Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the
law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of
Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

A fair question they might ask: "I am justified by faith, not the law, so why must I keep these dietary laws, as they
have no effect whatsoever on my salvation?"

For a new Christian, taking them on the tour through Isaiah, Hebrews etc. in an effort to explain would likely
make their eyes glaze over...it's too much "meat" for a new Christian to understand, especially when the contrary
seems quite apparent in NT Scripture.

So, please explain it to me as you would to that new Christian

 

[JonC]

Too many "Christians" get caught up in a covenant of which they were never party.

In Genesis God have Adam plants as food. In Genesis (after the flood) God gave Noah all creatures as food.

Then you have a covenant made by God through Moses to Israel of Moses' generation (not their forefathers). This is called "the Old Covenant", "the Law", "the Law of Moses" (as it was given through Moses).

The purpose of this Law was to "testify to", to "bear witness of" the New Covenant to come. This Law (this Covenant) was fulfilled by Christ and "canceled" by being nailed on the cross. This Covenant ended and a "better Covenant" came into being. This Law is "fulfilled in Christ".

It is ONLY in this Old Covenant (which has been canceled as it has been fulfilled) that dietary laws exist in Scripture, and these dietary laws only applied to those who were under that Covenant.


Paul condemned "Christians" who tried to apply these laws to Chriatians. They were rejecting the New Covenant for "another gospel". They were rejecting the New Covenant in order to return to the Old Covenant which no longer testifies to the Promise to come as the Promise has come. They "fall away" from the faith.

Then there are some who lack "knowledge", who are are of "a weaker faith". These are not presented as teaching others to obey dietary laws, but they are of a weaker faith and cannot grasp the knowledge of the New Covenant. These need to obey their conscious (if they believe it is a sin for them to eat shrimp then it is a sin if they eat shrimp as they willfully do what they believe is wrong).

 

[GentleGospeller]

No, it is not me.

Yes, it is 'you'.

In Genesis 9:3 God tells Noah "every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all thing".

Context:

- Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
- See also interlinear here - Genesis 9:3 Interlinear: Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
- Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
- Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.

Please consider what this says more closely. The "every" & "all" is in parallel to the "even as" or "as the green herb" (Gen. 1:29-30). Just as there was a difference between what could and could not be eaten in Gen. 1-3, so too there exists the same in Gen. 9.

Noah already knew the difference between the "clean" & "not clean" (Gen. 7:2,8, 8:20), from the time of Adam, and his sons (Gen. 4).

The granting (by God) of eating of animal flesh, among the "clean" only (just as there were certain things among the plants that were not to be eaten), since God only allowed such in sacrifice (Gen. 8:20), and the body of mankind is a temple (1 Cor. 6:19), was a temporary allowance, in the emergency situation, since all of the trees & plants of the world had been ripped up by the flood, and their storage aboard the ark, of "all food that is eaten" (Gen. 6:21), was dwindling (having already been in the Ark a year; Gen. 7:6,11, 8:13-14), and needed time to grow more (Gen. 9:20).

There is also the further reason, given in the context, that God allowed such eating of the "clean" animal flesh, and that reason was to shorten the long-lived lifespan of sinful mankind (Gen. 9:5), which is one of the reasons a major decline in age takes places as more and more post-flood flesh is consumed, and less and less post-flood plants are consumed.

The "blood" (Gen. 9:4) & "fat" (Gen. 4:4) still were not to be eaten, even among the "clean" during this temporary allowance.

The dietary restrictions

Are seen as far back as being given from Gen. 1-4, long before the 'old covenant' was made with the children of Israel (peoples). The dietary regulations exist for all mankind (for all mankind is related to Adam the first & Eve (Gen. 3:20), and Noah (Gen. 6:8,13; 1 Pet. 3:20); Act. 17:26), not merely for a specific group of persons (circa 1550 BC) among mankind. Even the nation (peoples) of Jacob / Israel, in their time & place, were to be as the living examples for all the rest of mankind around them (thus a kingdom of priests, and holy nation), see Deu. 4:1,5-8,14; Act. 17:24-31. This is seen more so in the time of Solomon (1 Kin. 10:1-13), and in anti-type in the time of Jesus, Jhn. 12:20-26.

are a part of the Old Covenant

I have already shown you what the 'old covenant' is from scripture; Exo. 19. Here it is again:

- Exo 19:3 And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;
- Exo 19:4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
- Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
- Exo 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
- Exo 19:7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.
- Exo 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.
- Exo 19:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the LORD.

That is the 'old covenant' struck between the LORD and the peoples of the "house of Jacob ... the children of Israel".

JEHOVAH said, "therefore, if ... and ... then ..." (this is the condition upon which God fulfills the promise to make of them, "a peculiar treasure ... a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation").

Moses is the mediator (Moses, on God's behalf, was to "say to the house of Jacob ... the children of Israel", "laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him", and Moses, on the people's behalf, "returned the words of the people unto the LORD", "told the words of the people unto the LORD"), between the LORD and the peoples, and when the peoples heard the terms ("therefore, if ... and ... then ...") and promise of God ("a peculiar treasure ... a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation"), they on their own part in response said, "All that the LORD hath spoken we will do."

So, does diet regulation exist for the peoples Israel to obey? Absolutely (see Lev. 11 & Deu. 14). They agreed to do anything which the LORD commanded of them (Exo. 19). This does not mean that diet regulation only began there, or only existed for them to do, since they were to be as examples to other nations, that those nations might fight mercy and repentance towards God. Dietary regulation even existed long before physical circumcision (with Abraham), and Abraham obeyed them also (Gen. 18:19, 26:5).

Also in Exo. 19 is God's "my covenant" which is not the 'old covenant' In God's eternal "my covenant" are the same laws about health / diet regarding the body temple.

(between God and Israel beginning at a soecific generation

Yes, the 'old covenant' began with the generation of Moses. No question. However, as I have shown, on several occasions, the dietary regulations did not begin there.

 

[GentleGospeller]

and concluding on the Cross as this covenant was fulfilled).

Yes, the 'old covenant' was fulfilled by Jesus Christ (4BC - AD 31; born / made 'under the law' (Gen. 4:4), 'circumcised' (Luk. 2:21) unto Calvary as 'the lamb of God' (Jhn. 1:29,36; &c.). No question. However, as I have shown, on several occasions, the dietary regulations did not begin, or end there. Yet, the feasts are still being fulfilled by Jesus (such as just previously, in the feast of Trumpets, to the present Day of Atonement, and to Tabernacles which follows after)

Even Peter (as recorded by Luke, and probably related by Mark (as taught by Peter) to Luke), years after the earthly (on earth) life, death, burial, resurrection, glorification, and ascension of Jesus to the Holy Place of the True Temple in 3rd Heaven, did not have any ideas that the dietary regulations of God were abolished, when he (Peter) said:

- Act_10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
- Act_11:8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.

Peter never once says that the dietary regulations of God were ended (and never thought so, and never understood Jesus to say so either, as people misuses Mar. 7 & Mat. 15 irrespective of what Jesus plainly is talking about there), and neither does God in the symbolic dream say such.

Paul, in all his epistles, never states that the dietary regulations of God were ended. Some incorrectly think there are, but Peter warned gravely about misusing Paul's epistles (2 Pet. 3:16), even as others before them did regarding the previous scriptures (Psa. 56:5).

James & Jude, in their epistles make no mention that the dietary regulations of God were ceased.

John, by the Holy Ghost, in the final work (circa AD 90's), mentions that there are still "unclean" animals (Rev. 16:13, 18:2) and "abominations" (Rev. 17:4-5), drawing from the natural to the spiritual (1 Cor. 15:46).

You are ignoring too much Scripture

Not so at all, as you may see above and by the responses I have provided in their details. Disagreeing with your position, by scripture, is not ignoring scripture, but is refuting your position by scripture.

to be taken seriously.

Whether or not you, or anyone, takes me seriously, is not really the point, as I am not the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, but the scripture is, and that is what is to be taken seriously at all times. I am simply 'amen-ing' what scripture states in my replies (Isa. 8:20; 1 Pet. 4:11), and so please take those things which scripture says seriously.

That said, many are of "a weaker faith".

Some, indeed are. I have met some over the years in their shaky faith, and always try to strengthen them with God's words, that they might live a happy, healthy, heavenly life here on earth as their time goes in God's grace.

You are.

No, I am definitely not weak in the faith of Jesus Christ. I understand what the Bible says about diet for mankind, and live it out as God's grace allows. That I disagree (based / foundation in scripture) with your position, is not to be weak, but knowledgeable / experienced in the faith of Jesus.

Do not violate your conscious.

The regulations of God in diet are not "[my] conscience", but rather rooted in "Thus saith the LORD". Matters of "conscience" are a differing thing.

If you and I were eating out I would refrain from exercising my freedom for your sake.

That is an incorrect conflation of the regulations of God in diet & "conscience". The regulations of diet are not "conscience" about food, though I could provide an example of such ('conscientiousness') in (within) the keeping of the regulations of God in diet. As much as you (presently) think you would be doing me a 'favour' in such a scenario as you present, the real blessing, is that you would actually be following a regulation of God in diet, unbeknownst to yourself (Act. 3:26).

 

[JonC]

Yes, it is 'you'.


Context:

- Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
- See also interlinear here - Genesis 9:3 Interlinear: Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
- Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
- Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.

Please consider what this says more closely. The "every" & "all" is in parallel to the "even as" or "as the green herb" (Gen. 1:29-30). Just as there was a difference between what could and could not be eaten in Gen. 1-3, so too there exists the same in Gen. 9.

Noah already knew the difference between the "clean" & "not clean" (Gen. 7:2,8, 8:20), from the time of Adam, and his sons (Gen. 4).

The granting (by God) of eating of animal flesh, among the "clean" only (just as there were certain things among the plants that were not to be eaten), since God only allowed such in sacrifice (Gen. 8:20), and the body of mankind is a temple (1 Cor. 6:19), was a temporary allowance, in the emergency situation, since all of the trees & plants of the world had been ripped up by the flood, and their storage aboard the ark, of "all food that is eaten" (Gen. 6:21), was dwindling (having already been in the Ark a year; Gen. 7:6,11, 8:13-14), and needed time to grow more (Gen. 9:20).

There is also the further reason, given in the context, that God allowed such eating of the "clean" animal flesh, and that reason was to shorten the long-lived lifespan of sinful mankind (Gen. 9:5), which is one of the reasons a major decline in age takes places as more and more post-flood flesh is consumed, and less and less post-flood plants are consumed.

The "blood" (Gen. 9:4) & "fat" (Gen. 4:4) still were not to be eaten, even among the "clean" during this temporary allowance.


Are seen as far back as being given from Gen. 1-4, long before the 'old covenant' was made with the children of Israel (peoples). The dietary regulations exist for all mankind (for all mankind is related to Adam the first & Eve (Gen. 3:20), and Noah (Gen. 6:8,13; 1 Pet. 3:20); Act. 17:26), not merely for a specific group of persons (circa 1550 BC) among mankind. Even the nation (peoples) of Jacob / Israel, in their time & place, were to be as the living examples for all the rest of mankind around them (thus a kingdom of priests, and holy nation), see Deu. 4:1,5-8,14; Act. 17:24-31. This is seen more so in the time of Solomon (1 Kin. 10:1-13), and in anti-type in the time of Jesus, Jhn. 12:20-26.


I have already shown you what the 'old covenant' is from scripture; Exo. 19. Here it is again:

- Exo 19:3 And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;
- Exo 19:4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
- Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
- Exo 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
- Exo 19:7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.
- Exo 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.
- Exo 19:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the LORD.

That is the 'old covenant' struck between the LORD and the peoples of the "house of Jacob ... the children of Israel".

JEHOVAH said, "therefore, if ... and ... then ..." (this is the condition upon which God fulfills the promise to make of them, "a peculiar treasure ... a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation").

Moses is the mediator (Moses, on God's behalf, was to "say to the house of Jacob ... the children of Israel", "laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him", and Moses, on the people's behalf, "returned the words of the people unto the LORD", "told the words of the people unto the LORD"), between the LORD and the peoples, and when the peoples heard the terms ("therefore, if ... and ... then ...") and promise of God ("a peculiar treasure ... a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation"), they on their own part in response said, "All that the LORD hath spoken we will do."

So, does diet regulation exist for the peoples Israel to obey? Absolutely (see Lev. 11 & Deu. 14). They agreed to do anything which the LORD commanded of them (Exo. 19). This does not mean that diet regulation only began there, or only existed for them to do, since they were to be as examples to other nations, that those nations might fight mercy and repentance towards God. Dietary regulation even existed long before physical circumcision (with Abraham), and Abraham obeyed them also (Gen. 18:19, 26:5).

Also in Exo. 19 is God's "my covenant" which is not the 'old covenant' In God's eternal "my covenant" are the same laws about health / diet regarding the body temple.



Yes, the 'old covenant' began with the generation of Moses. No question. However, as I have shown, on several occasions, the dietary regulations did not begin there.

You are wrong... to the point I am wondering if you are simply trolling.

1. Yes, the prohibition against using the animal's blood has been consistent. BUT I was not talking about blood as food. God gave Noah all animals (and edible plants) as food. But he was not to consume blood (which represents life... you will see why in the NT).

2. Genesis 4:4 ("Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering") is not instruction not to eat fat.


There is only one place where dietary laws (the types of animals that cannot be used as food) exists in Scripture. It is the Old Covenant. We were never under the Old Covenant (neither was Noah or Abraham).

 

[GentleGospeller]

GentleGospeller:

You are correct...no matter if Paul read it to them, or they read it themselves, the message was delivered.

Yes, the message was delivered.

STILL, you choose to ignore my question, stated again, below. If you are unable to answer, then own up
to it and say so.

Does choosing to ignore a question (several in fact) equate to not having an answer to said question? Does choosing to ignore a question equate to not having knowledge sufficient to reply to said question? Choosing to ignore, is simply that, of choosing to not take notice of said question, or to respond to it. Did you perhaps think, at any point, I might have reasons for not answering them?

I see by your "If" that you doubt my capability to answer said question/s, when I have provided no evidence to support such an "If", but very much evidence to the contrary, in that I am most able, to address the question.

Already, this thread has so many subjects, that stray from the OP, that adding others, 'justification by God's grace through faith' (Eph. 2:8-10), "works of the law" (Gal. 2-3) is just a few more things that take away from the focus of the OP in regards diet. Instead of addressing diet, you now want to discuss what justification is, and I would also have to show that you have a misunderstanding on what the phrase "works of the law" means (which has nothing to do with the regulations on diet).

- "... [page 66] The “works of the law” (Num. 4:23,30,35,39,43; “work”), are found in the “book of the law” (Gal. 3:10 KJB), and are the “carnal ordinances” (Heb. 9:10 KJB), “ceremonies” (Num. 9:3 KJB) and rituals (“rites”) that were shadowy types, such as the sacrifices of “bulls and goats” (Heb. 10:4 KJB), pointing to Jesus the saviour from sin (Mat. 1:21 KJB), which is transgression of the Ten Commandments (1 Jhn. 3:4; Jam. 2:8-13 KJB), or “spiritual” “law” (Rom. 7:14 KJB). ..." - The 7th Day The Sabbath - The Rest Of His Eternal Story (by Aaron Earnest) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

I will perhaps leave this with you, that you might simply see the plan of redemption in diet through the sanctuary of God (Psa. 77:13)
- DIE At The T Video and Powerpoint by brother Aaron Earnest : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The subject of diet is not attempting to teach one is 'justified' by food, in the least. Justification is found in Christ Jesus:

- Isa_45:25 In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.
- 1Co_6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Jesus Christ is not merely the Lamb (Propitiation / Sacrifice), but is also the High Priest (mediating His sacrifice). Jesus is not merely the sacrifice, but also the living example, and that includes diet.

 

[JonC]

Jesus is not merely the sacrifice, but also the living example, and that includes diet.

This is a false statement. The reason is Jesus was under the Law. The dietary restrictions given through Moses applied. Jesus fulfilled this Law.

Even Peter (as recorded by Luke, and probably related by Mark (as taught by Peter) to Luke), years afte...when he (Peter) said:

- Act_10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean....

You are taking a verse out of context.

Peter was accustomed to the Law. He did follow those restrictions. There was a mission.

Peter became hungry and God provided all types of animals, saying "kill and eat". Peter refused saying those animals were unclean (the verse you quoted). Then God repeated this three times, finally telling Peter not to call unclean what He has made clean.

This is why I think you are a troll.

1. You took a passage where Able offered the best of his heard with the fat to God and declared this means we cannot eat fat. In reality fat was eaten under the Law (it was prized, which is why it was an acceptable offering).

2. Then you take a verse where Hod tells Peter to kill and eat all these unclean animals, Peter refuses and God tells Peter He has made them clean.

In Acts there is a double meaning. The obvious is that the restrictions under the Old Covenant no longer exist (a new and better covenant has arrived). The deeper meaning is the inclusion of Gentiles.

 

[GentleGospeller]

You ate wrong...

I am not, since what I am saying is simply scripture repeated.

to the point I am wondering if you are simply trolling.

I am most serious in what I am relating, quoting. I do not appreciate those who waste the time of others in 'trolling'.

1. Yes, the prohibition against using the animal's blood has been consistent.

Indeed. Did you consider that in Acts 15, they are referring to dietary regulation of God found in the OT texts? So, if as 'you say' (not scripture, anywhere) such things are abolished at Calvary upon the cross (AD 31), why then did the council (Acts 15, years after Calvary) see fit, at minimum, to give 4 distinct and specific regulations from those OT texts in relation to diet, and refer to more to come in the reading of Moses every sabbath (Act. 15:21)?

Peter in his epistles directly quotes from the heart of dietary regulation. Would you like me to show you?

BUT I was not talking about blood as food.

Yes, you were, by saying that the 'OT' dietary regulations (which include instructions about blood) are an 'old covenant' thing as well. Why not? Such is obviously a regulation of the OT texts, and found in such regulations under the 'old covenant' (as you say) in the time of Moses and the peoples Israel.

- Lev_3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.

So, that is given in "Leviticus", under Levites as priests. You agree, right? The same goes for "fat" in the same verse. So, why would the Christtian council of Act. 15, say:

- Act_15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
- Act_15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
- Act_21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

The regulation against eating of blood existed before Moses, even as did the "clean" and "not clean", and the matter of the "fat".

God gave Noah all animals (and edible plants) as food.

No. That is not what the text says. It says God gave to Noah all the animals which are sanctified, even as God had given certain regulations about the plant life. They are in parallel in the text (as the one (plants), so too the other (animal life). There are certain plants that mankind are not to eat (beginning with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil), and thus God, from Gen. 1-3 makes distinctions about the plants (and showing difference from "herbs of the field" and "thorns and thistles" (by sin)). Thus, Gen. 9:3-5 shows the same distinction, consider it again:

- Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
- Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
- Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.

Thus, even as Noah (as head of the house, priest of the family) only sacrificed the "clean" (Gen. 8:20), the body temple can only accept the same, as God is to dwell in them.

But he was not to consume blood (which represents life... you will see why in the NT).

He could not eat blood, nor fat, nor the unclean. I already know why and I do not have to wait unto the NT to know it:

- Lev_17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
- Lev_17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
- Deu_12:23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.

The original reason is found in Gen. 3:15,21.

2. Genesis 4:4 ("Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering") is not instruction not to eat fat.

Yes, it is, by implication that such belongs to God (see Gen. 3:15,21) and thus to use it in a manner not sanctioned by God is to steal from that which belongs to God. The regulation on 'fat', 'blood', 'clean & un (not) clean' are from Genesis to Revelation.

There is only one place where dietary laws (the types of animals that cannot be used as food) exists in Scripture.

Incorrect. I have shown several from the places in Genesis.

It is the Old Covenant.

Incorrect. As stated, Noah already knew of the regulations on "clean" and "not clean".

We were never under the Old Covenant (neither was Noah or Abraham).

Whomever said that Christians ever were under the 'old covenant'? Not I (never said or implied at any point). The 'old covenant' (Exo. 19) is made with the specific peoples of Jacob / Israel. Whomever said that Abraham or Noah were under the 'old covenant'? Not I (never said nor implied at any point). The only time in which Abraham is even in association with such, is by Paul, under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in Gal. 4, and that used in allegorical fashion to draw a point.

So, why bring this up? I already agree, and that which agrees with my position (scriptural foundation), is not contrary to my position, nor evidence for your position on the matter of diet.

 

[JonC]

I am not, since what I am saying is simply scripture repeated.

No... you are not actually repeating Scripture.

For example, you quote Peter refusing to eat what God told him to eat as evidence we should not eat unclean animals. But you ignore God telling Peter to eat and God telling Peter He had made them clean.

You quote that Able offered the best of his animals and its fat, but add this means we should not eat fat.

You ignore that God gave all animals to Noah because God told him not to partake of the animals blood.

You use Scripture, but quoting out of context is not repeating Sripture.


I am not opposed to people maintaining whatever diet they desire.

But the passages you insist apply to us today say more than what Israel from Moses to the Cross are permitted to eat.

I am sure you know this. You, for example, would never wear a cotton-wool blend, or any fabric made of teo different materials, as this was given with the "dietary rules". You would never eat new grain before the second day of Passover. You make sure a tree has provided fruit for at least 3 years before eating any of the fruit, you make sure not to be clean shaven, etc.

I know you do this because you place yourself under the Law (and the Law canmot be divided). I am not sure how you make sure the fruit you eat is from a tree that has borne fruit for at least 3 years, or the timing of the grain you eat.... but I am sure you found a way because if not not only would you be a hypocrite but you would also perish under the Law (you don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Law apply and which do not).

 

[JonC]

The regulation against eating of blood existed before Moses, even as did the "clean" and "not clean", and the matter of the "fat".

Yes. Israel was prohibited from eating blood (and I believe this applies today as the Apostles permitted Christians to eat foods like pork, but not the blood).

The significance is in the NT.

You are wrong about the fat. It was more specific (the fat around certain organs).

BUT we are talking about types of animals used for food. The only verse in Genesis allows the eating of animals like pigs. You are completely wrong on that one.

And in the New Testament the verse you quoted (Peter saying he has never eaten of unclean animals) was in response to God telling him to kill and eat those animals because He had made them clean. The larger reference is Gentile inclusion.


As it stands you are on the fence. You want to be a Christian but also want to live under the Old Covenant (follow the Old Covenant rules about eating fruit, grain and animals, about the fabric you wear, your hair style, and amount of facial hair left on your face (if you are a man).

It would be better if you would choose - the Law of Christ or the Law of Moses. You cannot do both.

 

[GentleGospeller]

This is a false statement.

No, it is a true statement.

- Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

- 1Pe_2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

- Rev_3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

The reason is Jesus was under the Law.

Jesus indeed came / made "under the law" (Gal. 4:4), as I already stated. That does not negate Him from being the example of all mankind in how to live righteously by the Holy Ghost. So, your point, or the point to which I already acknowledged (Gal. 4:4) is not contradictory to that example in diet.

The dietary restrictions given through Moses applied.

Yes, they certainly did, but as stated they existed before Moses, as shown, and by your own admission to that point in regards "blood".

Jesus fulfilled this Law.

Jesus indeed fulfilled the "law of Moses". No question. Simply agreeing with my position, is not evidence contrary to my position (on scripture), not evidence in favour of your position (founded on 'you-ism').

You are taking a verse out of context.

No, but that is a bold accusation.

Peter was accustomed to the Law.

Yes, obviously, being a 'Jew' (tribe unknown, scripturally) of Galilee, Simon 'Peter' would know about "the Law", which can mean several things, depending on what you mean by that term. It could mean "Torah", it could mean "TaNaKh", it could mean the 'book of the law [of Moses]', it could mean the spiritual laws of God's own eternal character, the Ten Commandments, or any combination thereof.

He did follow those restrictions.

Peter obeyed God in diet, not merely because of 'Moses'. As stated, dietary laws existed before Moses. So, those who wanted to obey God, had to repent of their own personal belly god diet, and take up God's diet.

There was a mission.

Non-sequitur.

Peter became hungry and God provided all types of animals, saying "kill and eat".

Yes, in Acts 10 (first instance) - 11 (retelling), Peter fell asleep and God sent a symbolical vision, to which Peter did not have understanding of at the first, since Peter knew what Jesus taught about diet, as well as the whole of the OT texts, which is why Peter said what he says in response to the symbolical dream:

- Act_10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

- Act_11:8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.

- Act 10:17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,

Peter refused saying those animals were unclean (the verse you quoted).

Yes, Peter refused to kill and eat anything found in the vision.

Then God repeated this three times

Yep:

- Act 10:16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

- Act 11:10 And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven.

, finally telling Peter not to call unclean what He has made clean.

Correct:

- Act 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

- Act 11:9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

This is why I think you are a troll.

By your reply, I still know you do not have proper understanding of Acts 10-11. The vision was not about food at all, and even Peter never had that understanding, at any point about it. What he had was "doubt" (Act. 10:17) about the visions meaning and why it was done "thrice" / "three times", and yet the Holy Ghost told him the meaning:

- Act 10:7 And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually;
- Act 10:8 And when he had declared all these things unto them, he sent them to Joppa.

- Act 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
- Act 10:16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
- Act 10:17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,
- Act 10:18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.
- Act 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
- Act 10:20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

- Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

- Act 11:9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
- Act 11:10 And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven.
- Act 11:11 And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me.
- Act 11:12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house:

- Act 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
- Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

"m-a-n", not 'p-i-g'.

Neither Peter, Luke (recording the event in Acts) or the Holy Ghost, ever, in Acts 10-11 state that diet had changed, or that the dietary regulations had been lifted. The vision was not about food. The vision was about people (specifically the Gentiles), to whom Peter was being sent to speak the Gospel to.

Why then are you choosing to say other than what the texts say, and teach a doctrine (about diet) not found therein?

1. You took a passage

No, I quoted a text.

where Able offered the best of his heard with the fat to God

Yes, Abel offered the firstlings (firstfruits) of his flock with the "fat" (Gen. 4:4), as his father (Adam) had taught him to do (Gen. 4:3-5), as was originally modelled by Jesus, the very "voice of the LORD God" that walked in the Garden of Eden on earth (Gen. 3:15,21). Do you think that Abel was simply making up new religion on the spot with the LORD God standing there across (in the Garden) from them (outside of the Garden)?

and declared this means we cannot eat fat.

The Bible is a whole, though with many parts all working in perfect harmony / symphony. Not one part is contradictory to another part, as I am sure you would agree, and one part explains another part (Isa. 28:10,13), and sheds light in one part to another (Psa. 119:105; 1 Cor. 2:13). I am sure you would also agree that God does not change (Psa. 102:12,24-27; Mal. 3:6; Heb. 1:8-12, 13:4-8), correct?

The Bible from the beginning shows that the "fat" of the "clean" animal belonged to God, as it represented sin, was to end in the fire, and that which was to be burned and consumed unto smoke and ashes (Psa. 37:20, 73:17-19; Mal. 4:1,3, &c.). For more details on that I can provide to you a wonderful resource tool. Up to you though.

 

[GentleGospeller]

In reality fat was eaten under the Law (it was prized, which is why it was an acceptable offering).

Where do you get such a doctrine from scripture.

- Lev_3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.
- Lev_7:23 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat.
- Lev_7:24 And the fat of the beast that dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn with beasts, may be used in any other use: but ye shall in no wise eat of it.

No such thing is given in scripture wherein God allowed the eating of animal "fat". In fact, God was wroth with those who did:

- Deu 32:36 For the LORD shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or left.
- Deu 32:37 And he shall say, Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted,
- Deu 32:38 Which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink offerings? let them rise up and help you, and be your protection.

- Eze 34:2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?
- Eze 34:3 Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock.

Even in metaphor it was bad to eat the fat:

- Eze 39:18 Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth, of rams, of lambs, and of goats, of bullocks, all of them fatlings of Bashan.
- Eze 39:19 And ye shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be drunken, of my sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you.

Speaking of the antichrist, it was negative

- Zec 11:15 And the LORD said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd.
- Zec 11:16 For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.
- Zec 11:17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.

If you think there is any safety in your position from the following:

- Neh_8:10 Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye sorry; for the joy of the LORD is your strength.

The "fat" therein (Neh. 8:10) mentioned has nothing to do with animals in the context. More as needful.

2. Then you take a verse

No, I quoted a verse.

where Hod tells Peter to kill and eat all these unclean animals

Acts 10-11. Which I already showed, from the context is about a symbolic vision given to Peter about Gentiles, not Animals, about God cleansing a people, not a pig, about salvation / redemption in all things (which includes repenting unto God in dietary laws, even as Cornelius was already called 'God-fearer' (Act. 10:2), and thus partially mentioned in Acts 15).

, Peter refuses

Yep, already demonstrated.

and God tells Peter He has made them clean.

Ah, but the vision is symbolic of mankind, not animals. You are making literal, what God has made symbolic. You are, in effect, doing the same thing as the early disciples of Jesus did, in greatly misunderstanding the spiritual for the physical, the symbolical for the natural. I can give many examples for you if you need. You are in effect, doing what Roman Catholicism does to John 6.

In Acts there is a double meaning.

Oh? Says who? 'You'? Word to the wise, 'you' are not the Holy Ghost, nor the Scriptures, and as such I cannot merely take 'your word' at such a thing, but I need a plain "thus saith the LORD", as example:

1 Symbol:

- Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

2 Meanings:

- Rev 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
- Rev 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

I know this, because scripture tells me so. Are you now like the WTS / JW which expound upon Daniel 4, saying that not only is the vision about Nebuchadnezzar, but also many years (an imaginary 2,520)? Should I also trust their word that there is a "double meaning" when no such text exists upon which to base such a proposition as theirs?

The Holy Ghost, in the context explicitly stated what the vision means:

Act_10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

I have a "thus saith the LORD" for my position. You simply have 'you' at this point unless I see scripture in Acts 10-11 (or anywhere in scripture related) this "double meaning". Not even Peter understood the vision to have a "double meaning", and at the first was "doubting" until the Holy Ghost sent the "three" Gentile men, as He had given the vision "three" times to Peter. In the mouth of two or three witnesses, let everything be established. Acts 10-11 are two times in which the Holy Ghost & Simon state what the vision is about, and the vision given "thrice". Where are your 2-3 witnesses. I have seen only 'you-ism' so far about it.

 

[GentleGospeller]

The obvious

So, I need you as a 'guru' to tell me this secret "double meaning"? Why wouldn't I trust Romanism then, since they are far older than 'you' on this matter, and have already said such things, long before you ever did?

is that the restrictions

It is so sad that you call them (dietary laws) "restrictions" rather than regulations and a blessing. If one desires to think of such as "restrictions" then let them think of them as "restrictions" from violation of the laws of health, from sin, from suffering, from misery by diet, &c.

under the Old Covenant

Again, that you try to keep the dietary laws of God merely to the 'old covenant' shows that you have not properly understood sin in connection with diet, or righteousness in diet, from the beginning. You have, effectively, compartmentalized that which ought not be done.

no longer exist

No, the dietary laws still exist, which is why Peter said what he said, and why neither Paul, Luke (Acts), James, Jude or John stated otherwise anywhere, and in Acts 15 it is clear that the council is upholding very specific OT regulations on diet, and why John, in Revelation, still mentions "unclean" and "abominations".

(a new and better covenant has arrived).

Yes, we, whom are Christians, are under the New Covenant (thus not Exo. 19 & 24's agreement); found in the places I already mentioned (Isa. 56:1-8; Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:6-13, 10:15-17, &c.). That 'New' Covenant was in existence even before the earth was created, and is called the "everlasting Covenant," "covenant of ... life and peace," &c. There is no question about this, as I already cited:

- Heb_8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The deeper meaning is the inclusion of Gentiles.

No, only one meaning, which according to the Holy Ghost, is the Gentiles, the rest (addition to God's words) is 'you'.

God is sending you warning:

- Isa_65:4 Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels;
- Isa 66:15 For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
- Isa_66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

Those passages, in context speak to not merely the judgment upon physical Babylon, but also to the final days of this earth's present history and spiritual Babylon (I did not merely say so, as Rev. 13 & 17 says so, and Jesus says so, Isa. 66:24; Mar. 9:44,46,48).

The first plague, among the seven last plagues, comes because mankind rejects the health / dietary laws of God. It is a plague about health. An unhealable disease, because mankind have rejected the great Physician, the very Balm of Gilead, and His health laws:

- Rev 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

 

[JonC]

So, I need you as a 'guru' to tell me this secret "double meaning"? Why wouldn't I trust Romanism then, since they are far older than 'you' on this matter, and have already said such things, long before you ever did?


It is so sad that you call them (dietary laws) "restrictions" rather than regulations and a blessing. If one desires to think of such as "restrictions" then let them think of them as "restrictions" from violation of the laws of health, from sin, from suffering, from misery by diet, &c.


Again, that you try to keep the dietary laws of God merely to the 'old covenant' shows that you have not properly understood sin in connection with diet, or righteousness in diet, from the beginning. You have, effectively, compartmentalized that which ought not be done.


No, the dietary laws still exist, which is why Peter said what he said, and why neither Paul, Luke (Acts), James, Jude or John stated otherwise anywhere, and in Acts 15 it is clear that the council is upholding very specific OT regulations on diet, and why John, in Revelation, still mentions "unclean" and "abominations".


Yes, we, whom are Christians, are under the New Covenant (thus not Exo. 19 & 24's agreement); found in the places I already mentioned (Isa. 56:1-8; Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:6-13, 10:15-17, &c.). That 'New' Covenant was in existence even before the earth was created, and is called the "everlasting Covenant," "covenant of ... life and peace," &c. There is no question about this, as I already cited:

- Heb_8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


No, only one meaning, which according to the Holy Ghost, is the Gentiles, the rest (addition to God's words) is 'you'.

God is sending you warning:

- Isa_65:4 Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels;
- Isa 66:15 For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
- Isa_66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

Those passages, in context speak to not merely the judgment upon physical Babylon, but also to the final days of this earth's present history and spiritual Babylon (I did not merely say so, as Rev. 13 & 17 says so, and Jesus says so, Isa. 66:24; Mar. 9:44,46,48).

The first plague, among the seven last plagues, comes because mankind rejects the health / dietary laws of God. It is a plague about health. An unhealable disease, because mankind have rejected the great Physician, the very Balm of Gilead, and His health laws:

- Rev 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

The dietary laws (prohibiting eating pork, shrimp, fruit unless after the 3rd year of the tree bearing fruit, new grain before the 2nd day of Passover) did not exist prior to the Law being given through Moses and after the Cross.

Read what God said - "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man.".

God told Noah that everything that is alive shall be food, just as He had given every green plant. But not meat with blood.



The dietary laws were not a blessing (none of the laws were). Paul was clear on that. The reason was not the Law but human beings.

Paul was also very clear that there are no "dietary laws", "ceremonial laws" and "moral laws" (although they could be classified as such) because all of the commands and ordinances were given in one Law (one covenant).

To wear a shirt of two different materials, to eat shrimp, to eat the fruit of a tree without waiting until after the 3rd harvest, to be clean shaven, to murder a person.... all of these are equally violations of the Law. To violate one is to violate the entire Law.


You keep quoting the Old Testament (specifically people who were under the Old Covenant awaiting the comming Promise). That is not relevant.

You have to decide whether you are a Christian who fulfills the Law in Christ or a neo-Jew seeking to live under the Law. You cannot do both.


Your blended religion diminishes both the Law and the gospel of Jesus Christ. It would be better if you would reject one and follow the other. As it stands you disobey both.