What about that ham sandwich ?

Brother Bob, you are quite the dancer!

I DO NOT WANT YOU TO ANSWER FOR CLAUDIA! Please just answer for yourself.

Dido, it has neen both ways. Tell you what, ask me your questions you would like me to answer and I will answer them WITHOUT rewrite or unpreciseness. We will leave Claudia out of it.

And so do mine-- obviously.

I agree!

Now here is my question to BOB....

In light of Isaiah 66:17, will a Christian, one who has been born of God through faith in Jesus Christ, be destroyed by God at His coming because they have consumed swine's flesh at meal times? You may answer "yes, no or don't know". You may also explain your answer if you wish.

Second question. Does Bob believe we are saved by grace through faith alone ? Key words here are "saved" and "faith alone". This means apart from absolutely anything else found in our lives at the judgment seat of Christ.

Please give me your own questions Bob and I promiss you I will answer each one without any dance.

God Bless!

 

That is your response to - "simple, obvious and direct"??

That is your response to why I should be called upon to answer for Claudia??

Are you doing a Waltz?

Thanks -

So if you have some quote from me - that you would like to question - please continue.

If you have some question for Claudia - please continue there as well - let's see what she says.

As already noted --

No it does not. I am not asking you to answer a question I have about anyone "else's" post.

See? Isn't that simple and obvious?

I already did. See in the posts I have made to you above? I already asked you to observe the last text in Chapter 11 that used the term "edible" and I already asked you to observe the fact that in Lev 11 Christ the Creator tells His people that the rat, cat, dog and bat are not edible, not for food, not to be eaten.

I ask you if you think this Lev 11 restriction stated by Christ the Creator against the rat, cat, dog and bat has been removed in the NT or whether you think Christ died to change the status of the rat.

As you say - "We will leave Claudia out of it"

Ok?

Well then - we made progress.

Always good to have agreement.

No more than all Catholics would be destroyed just for using images in their worship services. (And I don't think they all will be destroyed for that - in fact I fully expect that some of them are saints and will go to heaven, as we find in all Christian groups.)

It does not change the rule - just because Catholics feel inclined to violate it.

Agreed?

Do you see "a principle" there?

In any case my focus on Isaiah 66 has been to focus on the rat that is mentioned there.

Are you happy saying that even though God says that those who eat rats are being destroyed - that in fact nothing of the kind will happen and God really does not care that much about rat sandwiches?

I DO believe what the Bible says about being saved by Grace through faith (Ephesians 2 comes to mind). If you have a text for the statement you make above - please quote it.

Hint: I have a statement from God about "saved by grace alone" in James 2. I believe that one TOO. Do you?? Where is your text from?

This is a Bible-only approach I am taking on this question and I understand that some people are very uncomfortable with that approach - but I hope you won't mind using it here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Yes, I believe the entire law has been removed for those who have received Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I guess that would then change the status of the rat for those who are in Christ. I guess it still remains in effect for those Jews who have rejected Jesus as Lord, not sure about that, never studied it much.

Now I have asked you this... "In light of Isaiah 66:17, will a Christian, one who has been born of God through faith in Jesus Christ, be destroyed by God at His coming because they have consumed swine's flesh at meal times?"

Your reply is...

I'm not sure how Catholics got invovled in this answer. I asked about "born again" Christians being destroyed by God for eating swine. It matters not to me where you find them congregating. I gather though from your answer that you do not believe True Christians will be destroyed for eating pork. This is the intent of my question. If this is incorrect, please clarify.

The problem is in the misuse of this passage of scripture. It is not because of the rat sandwiches they are destroyed but rather because they are worshipping and making sacrifices to false gods and the rat and swine happen to be their choice of animal. They probably chose these animals because it has been passed down through the ages that the Jewish God forbids them. Christians do not do this. You are plucking out a sentence taking it out of context.

My second question was... "Does Bob believe we are saved by grace through faith alone ? Key words here are "saved" and "faith alone".

You replied...........

Quoting single verses will not prove anyone's beliefs. I build my doctrine upon the full scope of the entire Word of God. You have apparantly studied the scriptures in depth. Can you not make an informed judgment as to whether or not "alone" can be applied to "grace" as a doctrine?

God Bless!

 

Truism? What are you talking about? Once again, you tried to twist my argument into a straw man by claiming that my reference to clean and unclean representing behavior would mean all meat would be unclean because all men are unclean. I pointed out that thatw as not so, because definite animals represented clean characteristica, and others represented unclean characterists. Of course, the point God was also revealing in the NT Gospel was that man could not be made clean without the imoutation of Christ's righteousness. Still, it is receiving this righteousess, and living according to it (continuing to be clean "sheep" "deer [panting for the water], etc. and avoid unclean behavior and people-- the "dogs" and "swine"; "rats", "weasels", etc) that fulfills the spiritual intent of the law of clean and unclean.

That was an ANALOGY to try to make the point simple for you. No, a parent is not God, but they are like God to a child, in that they know more, and God is basically our parent. That was the point. Of course it is not exact. But you miss the point while focusing on the technicality of it.

So once again, if you have a pet cat or dog wh dies, or clean up dead mice, roaches or any other "vermin"; do you practice being "unclean until the evening". If not, then you are not keeping this law. You cannot pick and choose which parts of it you want.

I don't know what TRANSLATION that is you're using (NIV?); but the KJV based ones I see simply say "...the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten". I'm not KJVO, but you have to be very careful with those other translations, because they often add their own interpretations and even paraphrases in, and it doesn't match the Hebrew, which in this case simply says "eat" (#398, akal). In fact, notice how they change the "may be eaten", but not the "may not be eaten". It is the same thing. So don't come talking to me about changing any text, when it's the translations you're using that do just that. That version has added the word edible based on someone's [incomplete] attempt to simplify the text, and it is not inspired and has no weight in this debate.

I don't know about rat, but they have become less healthy than the pig. Are you aware of the number of deaths each year from salmonella? Have you plugged into the CDC on that one? Or is this coming from the mind of the infinite?

It is your claim that these laws were about "health". If that were true, then any animal that is or becomes unhealthy for us, becomes "unclean", and any animal where we figure out how to make it healthier (e.g. cooking it better) would become "clean". You have completely removed the spiritual dimension from the Law, tryint to prover its universality; and that only weakens your argument. (it is not the bluiefish FINS themselves; I said an area of the meat near them. By your criteria it would be unclean).

Could be. I don't know. But I was told to avoid that area, because it would make us sick. If someone in OT times didn;t know that and ate it aned because sick, according to your logic, it should be unclean like shellfish, regardless of which takes in MORE impurities; whether it is 100's or 1000's times.

Oh, in God's eyes! (IT's about time we discussed His perspective!) God does not eat meats and get sick. God is spiritual, and creation is "good". If certain animals are bad "in His eyes", then this means they represent something spiritually bad in us; not health. It is amazing how you disclaim that getting sick from meats is what makes them unclean, while this is your whole argument in trying to prove "unclean" is about health!

No, those things are not in the text. That's because they are not why they are unclean. God later gives us His reasons why they are unclean:

2 Cor.
6:14 Be all of you not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship has righteousness
with unrighteousness? and what communion has light with darkness?
6:15 And what concord has Christ with Belial? or what part has he that believes with an infidel?
6:16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? for all of you are the temple of the living God;
as God has said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be all of you separate, says the Lord, and touch not the touch not the
unclean thing ; and I will receive you.

1Pet.
1:13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be
brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
1:14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
1:15 But as he which has called you is holy, so be all of you holy in all manner of conversation;
1:16 Because it is written, Be all of you holy; for I am holy.
Here, the apostles lift two statements right out of Lev.11: the Law of clean and unclean, and apply them to our behavior, and associations. That is clearly what those laws were pointing to, and even Peter's vision of the sheet, taken together with this, supports it.

 

Yep - that was it - the idea that there exists righteous behaviors and wicked behaviors.

Of course nothing about the unlcean animals (except that that are said to be unclean is mentioned in the text to show WHAT the wicked behaviors of mankind are.. but that is a detail you leave out of your truism).

My point remains - by reducing your thinking to nothing more than a truism (there exists wicked behavior and there exists righteous behavior among humans - so this is another meaning for clean and unclean animals BESIDES the explicit meaning God gives in the text - about food that is edible) -- means that you are left with something that is STILL TRUE TODAY.

No change at the cross in the truism that there "exists" behaviors that are wicked and behaviors that are righteous.

Your two-gospel view is coming out "again".

In any case - nothing in Lev 11 says "and oh by the way - there is no Messiah" (Greek term would be Christ).

As I said - when you try to "add" a truism of your choosing to the explicit words in Lev 11 - you do nothing to enable you to delete God's Word once you get to the cross - because the truism -- remains true after the cross just as before it.


In Christ,

Bob

 

If -- in addition to the details and meaning GOD gives in Lev 11 - you ADD the application from 2Cor 6 below -- something that REMAINS true EVEN in the NT (as 2Cor 6 REMAINS true) then you do nothing to accomplish your goal of abolishing Lev 11. They BOTH are true in the NT as in the OT.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I6t's not "another" meaning BESIDES "food that is edible". That IS the meaning, because the text, in the Hebrew (not your nonliteral modern translations) says nothing about "edibility". So if I'm speaking a "truism", then you're speaking a "falsism"!

What "two gospels"? That is the one Gospel, which God revealed in stages as He wrote the lesson in OT history that man could not be made clean without imputation.

Then again, what I asked above: do you practice "unclean until the evening" whenever you touch a dead creature that is not "clean"? If not, then you have "deleted" something, and if you say that you don't do it because of Christ (along with sacrifices, circumcision, annual feasts, new moons, and all the other rituals), then I guess yes, Lev. 11, plus the whole rest of the OT says "There is no Messiah" ( How ridiculous are some of your arguments!)

 

Well I am happy to tell you that you are wrong about the OT saying there is no Messiah in order to make its point in Lev 11 about that which is "edible".

Here is the NASB "again" that you are trashing to make your statements against it...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lev 11
39 "Also if one of the animals dies which you have for food, the one who touches its carcass becomes unclean until evening.

40 " He too, who eats some of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening, and the one who picks up its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.

41 " Now every swarming thing that swarms on the earth is detestable, not to be eaten.

42 "Whatever crawls on its belly, and whatever walks on all fours, whatever has many feet, in respect to every swarming thing that swarms on the earth, you shall not eat them, for they are detestable.

43 " Do not render yourselves detestable through any of the swarming things that swarm; and you shall not make yourselves unclean with them so that you become unclean.
44 "For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things that swarm on the earth.
45 " For I am the LORD who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy.'''
46 This is the law regarding the animal and the bird, and every living thing that moves in the waters and everything that swarms on the earth,
47 to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the edible creature and the creature which is not to be eaten.

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

How much clearer can it BE??

God talks about dead carcasses and sure you would not advocate the camp of Israel being careless with dead animals?? Surely you can "see" a health issue there?

Surely you see in the text as God says HE IS the Creator God and HE is HOly and so WE should follow HIS commands?

46 This is the law regarding the animal and the bird, and every living thing that moves in the waters and everything that swarms on the earth,
47 to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the edible creature and the creature which is not to be eaten.


BTW - I notice that you dropped 2Cor 6 like a hot potatoe. Lets look at that again for a second.

#1. It speaks of sin in the church - sin in the camp was an issue in BOTH OT and NT. And "did not go away at the cross" the very fact that Paul is STILL dealing with it after the cross eliminates 2Cor 6 as a "means" for getting rid of Lev 11.

#2. Using 2Cor 6 were ADDED symbolism is given to the LEV 11 LAW regarding what IS edible -- as a means for deleting that part of God's Word ... is like using James 4 where God speaks of adultery as loving the things of the world -- as a means to get rid of Christ the Creator's command in Exodus 20 against REAL adultery.

You simply can not do that! BOTH remain. There is REAL adultery and commands against it STILL and there is ALSO the James 4 spiritual adultery as in - loving the things of the World and turning from God. BOTH truths REMAIN.

You can not use one truth to get rid of another.

In Christ,

Bob

Surely you can see HIM reference swarming things.

Surely you can read the simple text that says

 

No, that was your claim

So does that mean that you DO practice unclean until the evening?
Look at those verses you quoted again? It says "Do not render yourselves detestable".
"Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean".
Notice. it is not "take care of yourselves therefore, and be healthy. And you shall not make yorselves sick". If that's what God meant; that's what He would have said. Sickness and health is physical; but uncleanness (and detestibility) and holiness (consecration, etc.) is spiritual just like God is a spirit.

OK, Dan Quayle; then that must mean that since there are real sacrifices, and there is also the spiritual sacrifice in Christ, then BOTH should remain. There is the real annual feasts and then there is the plan of salvation, which they represent, so BOTH should remain. Then, there is real circumcision, and spiritual circumcision of the ears, but BOTH should remain. After all, the realities NEVER replace the shadows.
The adultery command, on the other hand, HAS changed, because now it includes lust. The fact that we should be faithful to God and to our mates is universal, so that is why both the spiritual and the letter remain.
Once again, you keep pushing your word "edible" even though it has been soundly refuted. You'll never know what the spirit of the Law is as long as you plug in your own carnal (physical) definitions (such as "edible" rather than "consecrated"), you'll be forever blinded by the letter (2 Cor. 3:14-15), which kills (v.6).

 

Again you err in not noticing that God mentions the touching of dead animals and even states that NO MATTER if the animal is clean or unclean - touching the dead animal will make you unclean.

The point remains - these laws were given by Christ the Creator for the good of mankind.

And when HE calls them the LAWS regarding what is edible and what is not edible - we "really" can believe Him.

It can't be any simpler.

Christ the Creator says NO dog, cat, rat, bat sandwiches. You say it is just a coincidenc that He picks those bad things as bad to eat and then says that this is HIS LAW about what is edible.

Your position is incredibly hard to defend.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Oh "this" should be good.

First of all the type-and-antitype relationship between the "predictive" shadow sacrifices and the Messiah - THE sacrifice is well documented in scripture (Heb 9-10) EXPLICITLY showing one fulfilled by the other.

Your efforts here are to twist that around so things like "edible foods" and Adultery are ALSO cast in a type-antitype motif so that when we find additional application (in 2Cor 6 for the term unclean and in James 4 for the term "adultery") that is ALSO TRUE in BOTH OT and NT -- you can abolish whichever one suits you,.

That is an incredibly hard position to defend.

#1. It is NOT true that Christ was sacrificed as the LAMB of God in the OT - only in the NT. So the Antitype fact of the Messiah is NEW in the NT.

#2. IT IS TRUE that love the world is adultery against God in BOTH OT and NT - so adultery is not being "cancelled out" by some kind of antitype NEW in the NT.

IT is true that the 2Cor 6 concept of UNCLEAN regarding sin in the camp was true in BOTH OT and NT and was NOT something NEW in the NT. So "again" our attempts to re-cast this as a new fact only true in the NT -- a NT antitype failed miserably.

We already saw that.

"Again" there is no such thing as UNREAL (Shadow) adultery just because it is not limited to the James 4 love of the world focuse.

"Again" there is no such thing as UNREAL (shadow)
CLEAN/UNCLEAN just because the problem of sin in the camp (AN OT PROBLEM not NEW in the NT) is not the ONLY focus for that term.

You are simply making stuff up to get to the desired end of deleting Lev 11. But it has no other rhyme or reason other than a way to get out of Lev 11. There is no Biblical support for your methods there.

Really?

Changed after the cross??

Or changed in the PRE-CROSS Mosaic Law "dispensation"?

Let me see.... hmmm.. Matt 5 and 6 would be.... PRE-CRoss! You lose. That means it is true BOTH Pre-Cross and Post-Cross!

Welcome back.

Now watch as "you" argue against "you"

And by that you mean "I feel like accepting it EVEN if it no longer applies because it is CHANGED"??

Also note - that Christ's Matt 5 injunction is that NOT ONLY is the outward adultery STILL WRONG but ALSO "in addition" unfaithfulness of the heart is ALSO wrong.

HE does not delete one as you seek to do with Lev 11.

Your approach here is impossible to defend.

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. It may surprise you to learn that I did not translate the NASB. That is not MY word I am quoting.

#2. "You" Are the one who "needs" to edit "edible" out of the text - not me. Get it?

#3. The text says that EVEN CLEAN animals when the die become a problem if the carcass is mishandled - even THEY result in the person being unclean -- and of course we all know when dealing with dead animals there is risk whether they are CLEAN or UNCLEAN -- no don't we.

As for the NASB "being wrong" ...

How could this be any more obvious?

Dog, bat, rat, cat sandwhiches are "out"! And Christ the Creator is not just "luckey" in picking them out.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Col.2:16 shows that the food and drink laws (among other things!) are apart of those "predictive" shadows. Only, you simply haven't devised a way to explain Heb.9-10 away, but I'm sure it's possible.

WRONG! Christ's sacrifice may not have occurred in the OT, but still, it is what bought any salvation that occured then, not the sacrifices. By your reasoning, since it was both then, it should be both now.

The spiritual definition was always God's ultimate will; but in the OT, it was a time of "ignorance" that GOd "winked at"(Acts 17:30); but in the NT would reveal His full will. So in the OT, a bunch of physical rituals and laws were highlighted, while moral laws were downplayed. So divorce and polygamy were allowed, and anger and lust were not directlly forbidden. In the NT, sonce it is revealed that man's problem is spiritual (internal), and not physical (not enough rituals and other laws), then the more restrictive aspects of the moral laws are brought out, while many physical applications of the other principles are dropped. So yes, in the OT, both physical and spiritual adultery were really wrong; still, as Acts says, God winked at the spiritual violation (people were not stoned for lusting), and NOW commands all men to repent.

I don't care who translated it or whose word it is. It is WRONG. It is not the Hebrew. It is some man's INTERPRETATION of the text. I can't "edit out" of God's word something He did not put there. It is that translation that edits it in; and you too by using that translation.

Notice, in all of the other translations you quoted from, it is rendered correctly as "may be eaten" and "may not be eaten". One says "Is eaten/"is not eaten" but neither says anything about the flesh being "edible" (eatable or able to be eaten. It was not allowed to be eaten. That says noting in itself about the nature of the meat.

OK, I forgot that part of it. (I think there were some kind of extra restrictions regarding dead unclean, but I will have to look over the passage again. For one thing, you touch dead clean flesh everytime you eat it, but you couldn't touch dead unclean flesh in any case; whether it dies of itself or not). Still, even with the clean animals then, this was apart of the law of "clean and unclean"; and if you don't practice "unclean until the evening", you are not keeping the law. YOu may wash your hands, disinfect, etc. to get rid of the "health risk"; but that is not being unclean until the even ("ceremonially" unclean as one of your new trasnlations puts it).

 

You can not go get a dead fish and eat it - whenever you find one. "Clean or not". Dead animals pose a health hazard "clean or not".

If properly handled - the "Clean" animals can be eaten just as Christ the Creator states.

But Christ the Creator is very explicit in Lev 11 that EVEN THE CLEAN animals are a problem -- if you simply go out and find a dead animal.

Impossible to "get the point" that Christ the creator has made about watching what you do with "a dead animal" and also about not eating the "rat sandwich".

However -- you may object to NASB saying that this is the LAW about "what is EDIBLE" and however much you may object to ALL translations saying very expliclity that this law of Christ the creator TELLS us what may be EATEN (as if this is something besides EDIBLE??) -- it is all "pretty obvious".

You have to admit - your method requires a lot of "ignoring the obvious" about the rat sandwiches and dog-and-cat burgers Christ the Creator is excluding from the table of the Child of God!

And "no" Christ is not "just getting lucky" by having rules that "just so happen" to exclude the "Rat, cat, dog and bat" from the dinner table.

Nor is He "Just getting lucky" when we talks about not picking up dead animals and eating them.

It is one thing to deliberately kill a live healthy animal. It is quite another to find a dead animal and eat it "clean or NOT" and Christ the Creator ADDRESSES that obvious fact in His OWN list of rules regarding what can be EATEN and what must not be eaten (you know --- edible vs innedible) from Christ the Creator's POV in the context of HIS view of the subject.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Good post Wopik! I think it is very important for everyone to get the just of what Eesho said and what he meant, and what we are to follow as far as the dietary laws.

This is why it is very important to READ not just one Gospel and RUN WITH IT. Matthew claerly puts everything about the law of Levitcus in perspective:

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

Eesho did not change the Law when it came to eating certain foods. I think it is important to read what Apostle Paul wrote, ratifying this to be true!

Now most christians like to quote this scripture:

1 Timothy 4:3
3 Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Most Christians think this says you can eat anything if you say your blessings over it. WRONG. The bible is very clear on that and one does not need the Old Testament to ratify this fact. All they need is the next verse:

1 Timothy 4:4
For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Now some will say; "what is this guy talking about, the word said that EVERY CREATURE is good". Then I would say; "Wrong, why don't you do a word study for the word "EVERY", to know the truth." Let's do that shal we:
_________________________________________________
Strong's Greek Definition for # 3956

3956 // pav // pas // pas //

including all the forms of declension; TDNT - 5:886,795; adj

AV - all 748, all things 170, every 117, all men 41, whosoever 31,
everyone 28, whole 12, all manner of 11, every man 11,
no + 3756 9, every thing 7, any 7, whatsoever 6,
whosoever + 3739 + 302 3, always + 1223 3, daily + 2250 2,
any thing 2, no + 3361 2, not tr 7, misc 26; 1243

1) individually
1a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things,
everything
2) collectively
2a) some of all types
++++
... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after
Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan."
Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God,
little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does
the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are
used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very
rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are
generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts
-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not
restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ...
(C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on Particular Redemption)
_________________________________________________

So in what sense was the Wonderful Holy Apostle Paul speaking in? COLLECTIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He did not say every Chicken (which is Individual), He SAID every CREATURE (which is collective) and is defined as "some of all types", is the hammer that that drives this nail in so deep that know man can dig it out, with whatever kind of false reasoning!

The scripture states: "which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving"! That's past-tense!! That has already happen, and if it has already happened then you know the truth. God did not changed the laws of eating (which are not ceremonial laws that Eesho ABOLISHED ON THE CROSS), nor did Eesho in Mark 7:5, and THIS is very clear if one reads Matthew 15:20.

So we are not to eat HAM (PORK). And I will await any rebuttal (using the word of God only) on this "SOLA SCRIPTURA" fact I just posted. Thanks and eat well!

Ron

 

No, "MAY BE eaten" is NOT the same thing as "edible". This was the point IO was trying to make when I earlier mentiond a parent instructing his chind. "You MAY NOT eat sweets tonight". That could be because he is sick; or it may be a punishment, or because he has had to many already. IT says NOTHING about whether the sweets are "EDIBLE"; i.e. "able to be eaten". "ABLE" and "MAY BE" are two different things. One speaks of ABILITY, the other of PERMISSION. Ability is whether permitted or not; and permission is whether able or not.

You're also still not getting my point about dead animals at all. Clean, or unclean; the point is, if YOU ever touch them; do YOU practice the command to be ceremonial unclean until the evening? That was apart of the Law, and if you don't do it, you are not keeping the law of unclean!

 

Yes, "Created" was past. God created all animals in the past, but originally, there was no distinction between clean and unclean. Man ate no animals at first, then after the Fall and Flood; man was allowed to eat any animal (Gen.9:3). ("Clean" and "unclean" were at this point in regard to SACRIFICE only; because that is all man did with animals before this verse!).
The clean and unclean distinction was not extended to food was not until the ceremonial law given to Moses. As I am trying to get through to Bob, it included such measures as being "ceremonially unclean" if touching dead carcass (which even in the case of a clean animal, would then become unclean). I think spoiled meay is in there too somewhere. Still, this was but an expansion of the sacrifice laws.

 

Yes, "Created" was past. God created all animals in the past, but originally, there was no distinction between clean and unclean. Man ate no animals at first, then after the Fall and Flood; man was allowed to eat any animal (Gen.9:3). ("Clean" and "unclean" were at this point in regard to SACRIFICE only; because that is all man did with animals before this verse!).
The clean and unclean distinction was not extended to food was not until the ceremonial law given to Moses. As I am trying to get through to Bob, it included such measures as being "ceremonially unclean" if touching dead carcass (which even in the case of a clean animal, would then become unclean). I think spoiled meay is in there too somewhere. Still, this was but an expansion of the sacrifice laws. </font>[/QUOTE]I think Paul and Peter had this same disagreement, clean settings, unclean settings; but the fact still remains that one is commanded not eat anything contrary to the Law of Leviticus. WE ARE NOT TO EAT PORK, BE WE ARE ABLE TO.

Ron

 

But you are not keeping the entire Law of Leviticus. "Clean" and "unclean" were far more than just what you put in your mouth. That's why i mention "unclean until the even" for touching dead animals. Then, the laws on leprosy, unclean after childbirth, etc.

 

1. If I kill an animal, that thing which God "GAVE" to me for eating and have the STORAGE FACILTIES to KEEP it FRESH, it is "CLEAN" and Edible for consumption.

But if I kill that thing which God "DID NOT" give to me for eating and have the STORAGE FACILTIES to KEEP it FRESH, it is "NOT CLEAN" and edible for consumption.

2. If I kill an animal, that thing which God "GAVE" to me for eating and "DID NOT" have the STORAGE FACILTIES to KEEP it FRESH and EDIBLE, it is Clean but "NOT" Edible for consumption.

But if I kill an animal, that thing which God "DID NOT" give to me for eating and "DID NOT" STORAGE FACILTIES to KEEP it FRESH and EDIBLE, it is NOT Clean and"NOT" edible for consumption.

I hope that was not too confusing.

Ron