What about that ham sandwich ?

Unclean vs. Defile

 

Your wild poisnous mushrooms are now ok interpretation is what happens when you drop exegesis go off into the wild blue yonder.

The context is the Jewish tradition that "sin" is a substance that touches food. In this case they are not talking about ham vs beef -- they are talking about barley or WHEAT!

There is nothing in God's word that says wheat has sin on it. The jews were "making stuff UP!".

Jesus did not jump wildly OFF TOPIC and start addressing things that had nothing to do with the error of the jews. Rather He was ON TOPIC. And His statement is that SIN is NOT a molecule like substance that clings to the outside of food so that when you eat food BLESSED by the Bible as "edible" - you "get sin in you" for failing to ceremonially "baptize" your fingers that touched the sin on the food.

Stay with the context - stay with the point He is addressing. IN that context He says that ALL FOOD is "clean" in terms of "sin touching it" or "sin clinging to it". In other words the VERY thing that the Jewish leaders were promoting -- was false.

Some people think that Christ was taking the Word of God and making it void here. In fact He is taking the word of MAN and making it void WHILE arguing that the Word of God should NOT be contradicted by the traditions of man.

How easy can this be???

In Christ,

Bob

 

Isn't it funny how we all think we got everything right and everyone else is way off? We are all guilty of this. I bet out of all the posters on these boards, only a few would change a position on anything. We shake our heads in amazement that someone could have such a wackey view about something. I have an idea. I am going to start a new thread and see just how many responses it gets. I bet it won't be many, at least not on topic anyways!

God Bless!

 

The Mosiac Covenant has no application to gentiles living outside of Israel. Never did.

 

Pass the bacon!

 

I like mine with mayo, lettuce and tomato.



Bro Tony

 

Will you have some figs with that ham sandwich?

Mark 11:12 Now the next day, when they had come out from Bethany, He was hungry. 13 And seeing from afar a fig tree having leaves, He went to see if perhaps He would find something on it. When He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14 In response Jesus said to it, "Let no one eat fruit from you ever again."

 

Well - not from "that tree".

The next day they passed by that tree and found it to be withered, dry and destroyed.

Christ's words were literally true.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Did Christ die on the cross to "cleanse" the snake, pig, rat or cat?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Why do you suppose that God placed horses, dogs, hamsters, frogs, snakes, pigs, cats and rats off limits in Lev 11 as he defined what food is "edible"?

Do you think that the clean animals that went into the ark by 7's and the unclean that went into the ark by 2's were waiting for Jews?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I understand about 'that' tree, Bob. I was trying to make a point... God removed food restrictions in a vision. Remember?

Acts 10:9 The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance 11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." 14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean." 15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common." 16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again. 17 Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant, behold, the men who had been sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate. 18 And they called and asked whether Simon, whose surname was Peter, was lodging there.

Matthew 15:11 It's not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man."

Romans 14:14 I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself. Still, to someone who considers a thing to be unclean, to that one it is unclean.

1 Timothy 4:4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing should be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,

 

Bob, I can't tell you about all the others, but I do know why cats are off limits.

Right, Diane?

 

AMEN! LadyEagle.

 

I heard a doctor speaking about rats.....he said that they cause lukimia(sp?)......or was it the hot dogs and corny dogs with ground rat and pork in them? Rat on the stick anyone?

All I know is that the diatary laws (or directions..which ever you want to call them) are suppost to be healthy.

BTW, In referance to what Diane posted.... I thought that Acts 10:9-18 wasn't speaking of food, but of the Gentiles that Peter was going to visit. There was something with Gentiles and Jews being together in the same place or something? Also wasn't Gentiles called unclean somewhere?

Music4Him

 

Back to Bob's question:

Shellfish, as we know, are scavengers. Yuk. If I had any good sense, I would know they were unclean. (But I do love lobster and shrimp, LOL!) They also harbor bacteria, like Salmonella, harmful to humans.

We all probably know about Trichinosis in undercooked pork, but here's also some info about it:

http://health.yahoo.com/health/ency/adam/000631/overview

So, God in His Knowledge, which man didn't have the scientific or medical knowledge about at the time of Leviticus Dietary Laws, forbade certain foods for health reasons.

I'm sure there were probably other reasons, though. Perhaps to set the Israelites apart from the people and nations around them, who probably didn't have such dietary laws.

Now that you've read all that medical information, do you still want that ham sandwich?

Pass the mustard, please.

 

Up above in general baptist forum theres a discussion about not tithing becasue it is O.T. and not repeated in the N.T. And here the discussion on following O.T. laws that are not repeated in the N.T.
Jesus died so we would not have to try and live under law again, except for the ones He repeated in the N.T. Repeating a few was not endorsing them all for N.T. believers. Who the Son has set free is free in deed. We have been freed from the law and are under grace. Living by the law is living in bondage.

 

Why not just say...If the Lord convicts you or tells you... to not eat pork, tithe, and such... doesn't mean that everyone should do the same as you? Like in the old and the new testament here are two examples....

Samson= no hair cuts

John the Baptist= shall drink neither wine or strong drink

Music4Him

 

In Lev 11 we find "general instruction" about food that is edible. It never mentions the idea that "this is just for those that feel like obeying".

In Genesis 6 and 7 we find the distinction between clean and unclean animals long before there is a Jew and God does not say "If you feel like bringing some clean animals in then do it".

In Isaiah 66 when it talks about those that are burned with fire - it meantions among them - pagans, worshippers of false gods and then ... curiously, a mention of eating mice and detestable things (where it also adds a reference to ham sandwiches oddly enough).

If this is just a "do what you feel like doing" idea - it was poorly stated in scripture, so much so that it looked like it was applicable and real.

In Christ,

Bob