What about that ham sandwich ?

[BobRyan]

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

Right, Diane?

You know there are some asian eateries where the rats, cats and dog idea is not out of the question.

Of course - if they had been reading scripture, Lev 11, I don't think they would have done that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
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.

In Acts 10 and 11 Peter re-tells this story two times. Once to gentiles and once to Jews - never does he say "and the lesson was that we can eat rats".

Also - in the dream - Peter says 3 times that he will not eat the rats and each time he does so he claims it as a matter of obedience. God never says "Hey! Wait a minute Peter - you have to eat rats!"

The rats are offerrerd 3 times, and then 3 gentiles shows up at his door. Peter claims that God was showing him that he should call no MAN unclean. He goes with them AND he baptizes them.

And not one bite of a rat sandwich! Amazing! How can that be??!

Maybe the point is that Christ died to show us the need to spread the gospel to all - he did not die to cleanse the cat or rat as food.

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."

Here we find a PRE-Cross statement where even Christians today will admit the Lev 11 laws are in full effect. Did Christ abolish His own scripture even BEFORE the cross??

Hardly! The Matt 15 "context" is not about eating rats - it is about eating GRAIN!! Which is not spoken against AT ALL in His own Lev 11 Law. He stated in Matt 15 that He is arguing against laws of TRADITION not scripture.

Yet some have used this to abolish Christ's Word in Lev 11 - as if this was the context of that debate.

In the debate Christ argues FOR the Word of God, FOR the command of God and AGAINST man made tradition - how then can some today use that text to argue against God's Word in Lev 11??

That is a tough one.

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.

In Romans 14 the issue is between vegetarianism and eating meat offerred to idols. There is no OT command to be vegetarian - rather this gets to a NT Acts 15 command against eating meat offerred to idols. Paul points out that such meat is not really "unclean".

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

Paul tells Timothy that it is sanctified by the WORD of God - and in obedience to that WORD it may be eaten. This preserves the concept already pointed out above.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[music4Him]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by music4Him:
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 </font>[/QUOTE]~Bob, but least you forget..........

Rom. 14:15 -
But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

Col 2:16 -
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

....in having posted these two scriptures, I would like to say if you are conviced to follow the Levitical law thats great! #1. You'll be more healthy for it! (BTW, I don't eat nothing but beef, chicken and turkey myself, but I will not condemn anyone... even my hubby and his family who will eat shrimp, catfish and pork) its their choice.

Isn't it true there are different laws for Gentiles like this one?
Acts 21:23-25
Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 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.


So now what.... do we ask our butcher how our meat is processed? Since there is also a bibical way to kill the animals for food too.

~If our children are hungery and say we are broke down in front of a hotdog stand...do we refuse them food because its a hot dog....my opinion is no, but I'm not going out the next day after giving them one and buy out the store either.

Music4Him

 

[BobRyan]

This is not a case of me finding some eating a rat sandwich and judging them harshly.

I understand that rats, cats, dogs and bats are eaten on a regular basis by peoples around the world and I am not reaching out to them with the fact that God said in His Word - in Lev 11 that these animals are not food - are not "edible" and that this disctinction was in place in Gen 6-7 before there was ever a Jew. Rather, I think the Gospel message of salvation comes first.

However - this basic distinction about animals that can be considered food and those that can't is made explicitly by the creator of all life on earth ( I am not an evolutionist). The creator made the animals - and claims to know which ones will work as food for humans.

Some today argue that He might have been wrong, or maybe Christ died to make rats, cats, dogs and bats good for food. Or maybe they were only bad for food for Jews. Or Maybe...

However - I am trusting the Creator on this one, and I think the fact that He identifies it in Genesis as a valid distinction - long before there is the first Jew - eliminates that "but it is for Jews only" confusion.

Further - there is nothing in the NT that suggests that Christ died for the rat, cat, dog or bat, or even so that they could be invited as the main attraction to the dinner table.

But I know you could always point out the fact that there are people out there chowing down on rats and cats to prove me wrong.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

Barnabas 10

Now, wherefore did Moses say, "Thou shalt not eat the swine, nor the
eagle, nor the hawk, nor the raven, nor any fish which is not possessed of
scales?" He embraced three doctrines in his mind [in doing so]. Moreover,
the Lord saith to them in Deuteronomy, "And I will establish my ordinances
among this people." Is there then not a command of God they should not eat
[these things]? There is, but Moses spoke with a spiritual reference. For
this reason he named the swine, as much as to say, "Thou shalt not join
thyself to men who resemble [behave like] swine." For when they live in pleasure, they
forget their Lord; but when they come to want, they acknowledge the Lord. And
[in like manner] the swine, when it has eaten, does not recognize its master;
but when hungry it cries out, and on receiving food is quiet again. "Neither
shalt thou eat," says he "the eagle, nor the hawk, nor the kite, nor the
raven." "Thou shalt not join thyself," he means, "to such men as know not how
to procure food for themselves by labour and sweat, but seize on that of
others in their iniquity, and although wearing an aspect of simplicity, are
on the watch to plunder others." So these birds, while they sit idle,
inquire how they may devour the flesh of others, proving themselves pests [to
all] by their wickedness. "And thou shalt not eat," he says, "the lamprey, or
the polypus, or the cuttlefish." He means, "Thou shalt not join thyself or be
like to such men as are ungodly to the end, and are condemned to death."
In like manner as those fishes, above accursed, float in the deep, not
swimming [on the surface] like the rest, but make their abode in the mud which
lies at the bottom. Moreover, "Thou shall not," he says, "eat the hare."
Wherefore? "Thou shall not be a corrupter of boys, nor like unto such."
Because the hare multiplies, year by year, the places of its conception; for
as many years as it lives so many it has.
Moses then
issued three doctrines concerning meats with a spiritual significance; but
they received them according to fleshly desire, as if he had merely spoken of
[literal] meats. David, however, comprehends the knowledge of the three
doctrines, and speaks in like manner: "Blessed is the man who hath not walked
in the counsel of the ungodly," even as the fishes [referred to] go in
darkness to the depths [of the sea]; "and hath not stood in the way of
sinners," even as those who profess to fear the Lord, but go astray like
swine; "and hath not sat in the seat of scorners," even as those birds
that lie in wait for prey. Take a full and firm grasp of this spiritual
knowledge. But Moses says still further, "Ye shall eat every animal that is
cloven-footed and ruminant." What does he mean? [The ruminant animal denotes
him] who, on receiving food, recognizes Him that nourishes him, and being
satisfied by Him, is visibly made glad. Well spake [Moses], having respect
to the commandment.
What, then, does he mean? That we ought to join ourselves to those that fear
the Lord, those who meditate in their heart on the commandment which they have
received, those who both utter the judgments of the Lord and observe them,
those who know that meditation is a work of gladness, and who ruminate
upon the word of the Lord. But what means the cloven-footed? That the
righteous man also walks in this world, yet looks forward to the holy state
[to come]. Behold how well Moses legislated. But how was it possible for them
to understand or comprehend these things? We then, rightly understanding his
commandments, explain them as the Lord intended. For this purpose He
circumcised our ears and our hearts, that we might understand these things.
----------------------------------

This gives you an idea of the spiritual principles behind the dietary laws. The Gentiles were associated with those bad traits mentioned, but God was shoing that that was not necessarily so, but that God was cleansing some gentiles now in opening salvation up to them (while many Jews were spiritually unclean; despite rigorously following the letter of the Law. This in itself is not telling Peter "OK, you can eat all those unclean meats now". But in opening up the Gospel to the gentiles, who never kept the Law, the expounded principle of clean and unclean [behavior/associations] would take place of the letter of the Law of Moses. (2 Cor.6:17, 1Pet.1:15)
These were not health laws. Beef is now said to be the worst for you and Chicken the most dangerous if improperly cooked now that pork has been cleaned up alot. (and shellfish was always considered healthy when people knew how to cook it). Saying it was just a health law (to supposedly prove its universality) only opens it up for the whole Bible to be dismissed based on us having other means to improve good health. The same thing with the laws on sex.
The law is spiritual, folks. (Rom.7:14)

 

[wopik]

In Acts 10, Peter says we can now eat all kinds of unclean animals

Peter's vision, given to him by God, was not to tell Peter that he could eat any old animal God made. Peter, himself, tells us the meaning of the rolled down sheet - with all the unclean animals on it:

"And he(Peter) said unto them, 'you 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 has showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean' " (Acts 10:28).

Cornelius and his companions were apparently Italians (Gentiles) and the Jews would have - according to Peter - not been able to associate with them. The sheet was rolled down three times, signifying the three gentile men waiting to see Peter.

"Of a truth I preceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that fears Him, and works righteousness, is accepted with Him" (Acts 10:34-35).

 

[Turpius]

.....or it could mean something else!

 

[The Undiscovered Country]

Originally posted by Trotter:
Pass the bacon!

And a decent bottle of wine please

 

[wopik]

Acts 10:14 -- "But Peter said, 'Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean' ".

Luke is narrating a post-resurrection story. And Peter still thinks there are foods that are "common or unclean" --- circa 65CE ?

Quite revealing of the post-resurrection mind of Peter, the one who was specifically directed to "feed my sheep".

**********************************************

GOD is still differentiating between clean and unclean foods at this late date. God still has a "list" of unclean foods.

 

[The Undiscovered Country]

Originally posted by wopik:
Acts 10:14 -- "But Peter said, 'Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean' ".

Luke is narrating a post-resurrection story. And Peter still thinks there are foods that are "common or unclean" --- circa 65CE ?

Quite revealing of the post-resurrection mind of Peter, the one who was specifically directed to "feed my sheep".

**********************************************

GOD is still differentiating between clean and unclean foods at this late date. God still has a "list" of unclean foods.

Surely part of the point of the episode (aside from the issues about the Gentiles) is that Peter was wrong to do so?

 

[wopik]

Surely part of the point of the episode (aside from the issues about the Gentiles) is that Peter was wrong to do so?

Hi, The Undiscovered Country

Peter was wrong to do what?

 

[The Undiscovered Country]

To believe that there still were unclean foods.

 

[blackbird]

Cats are predatory animals and belong in the wild, wild world---not "hemmed up" in some surburban house!!!---he needs runnin' room--lots of runnin' room!!!

Other than that----in my brand of thinking, Brother BobRyan has just hit a "Homerun!!" with his collective posts!!!!

Bro. David

 

[wopik]

wopik

Peter was wrong to do what?

The Undiscovered Country

To believe that there still were unclean foods.

It is possible Peter was right, and we are wrong.

God showed Peter that he should not call any man common or unclean (Acts 10:28). That was God's reason for showing Peter the sheet of unclean animals.

God still apparently classifies foods as clean or unclean, for the sheet was full of unclean animals.

 

[wopik]

Here's an interesting article on the subject -

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/laws/diet.html

 

[Eric B]

From that page:

These unclean creatures symbolise unbelief: and unbelief pollutes a person, it makes him/her unclean. I repeat, unclean creatures are still unclean: just as unbelievers remain unbelievers until such time as genuine faith in God purges their uncleanness.

Here they get part of the symbolism right, but the point of those restrictions was to symbolize unclean behavior (formerly associated with Gentiles; now associated with anyone living in sin/unbelief), and it's this spiritual meaning that takes precedence now (see 2 Cor.6:17 and 1Pet.1:15's usage of OT statements that originally referred to meats).
Also, the site mentions Isaiah 65 & 66, but this spiritual principle is evident in 66:3: He that kills an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrifices a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck [i.e. sacrifice of an unclean animal]; he that
offers an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood [the ultimate "abomination of desolation"! ]; he that burns incense, as if he blessed an idol.

Here we see what "unclean meats" clearly represents in these chapters. "But are't these things God commanded?" Yes, but the reason why: "they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delights in their abominations...because when I called, none did answer; when I spoke, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not". When living in sin, even the commandments you do keep become like breaking them. This is the true law of "clean and unclean".

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
This is not a case of me finding some eating a rat sandwich and judging them harshly.

I understand that rats, cats, dogs and bats are eaten on a regular basis by peoples around the world and I am not reaching out to them with the fact that God said in His Word - in Lev 11 that these animals are not food - are not "edible" and that this disctinction was in place in Gen 6-7 before there was ever a Jew. Rather, I think the Gospel message of salvation comes first.

However - this basic distinction about animals that can be considered food and those that can't is made explicitly by the creator of all life on earth ( I am not an evolutionist). The creator made the animals - and claims to know which ones will work as food for humans.

Some today argue that He might have been wrong, or maybe Christ died to make rats, cats, dogs and bats good for food. Or maybe they were only bad for food for Jews. Or Maybe...

However - I am trusting the Creator on this one, and I think the fact that He identifies it in Genesis as a valid distinction - long before there is the first Jew - eliminates that "but it is for Jews only" confusion.

Further - there is nothing in the NT that suggests that Christ died for the rat, cat, dog or bat, or even so that they could be invited as the main attraction to the dinner table.

But I know you could always point out the fact that there are people out there chowing down on rats and cats to prove me wrong.

Ok - so I agree with me here.

But I want to point out that when you argue that Christ died on the cross so the bat, cat, rat, dog and frog can now become edible food for humans -- you cheapen the entire purpose of the Cross.

In addition - the "Details" in the Acts account of Peter and the sheet full of cats-dogs-snakes and rats that came down 3 times, is never once said to be anything OTHER than a reference to the THREE gentiles about to knock on his door.

And in Peter's explanation of the "meaning" of that vision - HE never once says that the meaning is that we should eat rats. NOR does he say that he started eating rats after that vision.

It just isn't there.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[The Undiscovered Country]

How is it cheapening the purpose of the cross? If anything, it is emphaising the centrality of the cross in the redemption of all creation and its liberation from the Law that could never bring salvation.

If the food restrictions you refer to still apply, then why are they not mentioned in the advice to Gentile churches in Acts 15? Yes, there are a small number of food restrictions mentioned there-and the reasons for thier presence is in some ways a separate issue-but the key issse is that most of those you mention do not appear and one would expect them to do so.

 

[BobRyan]

I point out that Christ died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins - not to turn the rat into food so that we can now eat rat, cat, dog, bat sandwiches.

I point out that turning the cross into a "means" for allowing us to eat rat-sandwiches simply cheapens the cross.

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
How is it cheapening the purpose of the cross? If anything, it is emphaising the centrality of the cross

Well I suppose if you are that partial to rat-sandwiches you might eventually talk yourself into thinking that Christ dying on the cross so that you can bite that tasty rat - is in fact a "good thing", but many will rather think of Christ dying on the cross as being the means of our salavtion, and forgiveness of sins, and paying the debt that we owe etc... having nothing to do with dog-burgers, rat-sandwiches, or cat-roast.

in the redemption of all creation and its liberation from the Law that could never bring salvation.

I certainly agree that when God said to be faithful to your spouse and not to eat rat-sandwiches,, we had no way to "get to heaven" by obeying Him in those areas - for we have enough OTHER problems as sinners that those healthy rules for living would not "save us" from our bigger problems.

However - God STILL did not die on the cross so that you can now be unfaithful to your spouse OR so you can eat rat-sandwiches.

I know that may seem like a difficult concept now - but eventually you will come to see that it makes perfect sense.

If the food restrictions you refer to still apply, then why are they not mentioned in the advice to Gentile churches in Acts 15?

They are also not told to love God with all their heart, or not to murder NOR are they told to honor their parents.

Clearly they were "getting all that" instruction anyway since as James said "Moses was being preached each Sabbath in the synagogue" and as we SEE in Acts 13 GENTILES were in attendance at the synagogues.

Yes, there are a small number of food restrictions mentioned there-and the reasons for thier presence is in some ways a separate issue-but the key issse is that most of those you mention do not appear and one would expect them to do so.

The long sought after rat-sandwich is not promoted in Acts 15 as you seem to have hoped. Even worse Acts 15 says NOT to eat meat with blood in it, or that has been strangled. This is right out of Leviticus it is not even the 10 commandments.

And well may that be since as Paul said in Rom 3:32 "Do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH God's Law"!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[wopik]

They are also not told to love God with all their heart, or not to murder NOR are they told to honor their parents.

Clearly they were "getting all that" instruction anyway since as James said "Moses was being preached each Sabbath in the synagogue" and as we SEE in Acts 13 GENTILES were in attendance at the synagogues.

BobRyan

People say Acts 15 did away with Sabbath observance for Gentiles Christians.

Please explain why Acts 15 did NOT do away with Sabbath observance - for Christians.