|
|
Post by dwight92070 on Aug 20, 2022 10:18:43 GMT -8
I was reading Mark 7:17-20 and I was thinking about how many Christians seem to interpret this as Jesus freeing people to now eat pretty much anything, or I should say ANY animal, ANY tree fruit, and any plant. Of course, they zero in on the last sentence of verse 19, where Mark injects his comment: ("Thus He declared all foods clean.") I don't think Mark is saying that Jesus is now declaring all ANIMALS clean, such as pork, lobster, crab, swordfish, octopus, shrimp, worms, tarantula, spiders, ants, caterpillars, moths, leeches, etc., etc. Mark did NOT say ANIMALS, he said FOODS. In my understanding, unclean animals are NOT FOODS.
Maybe they were at one time after the flood (Genesis 9:3), but I suspect that even that verse is misinterpreted. In Genesis 1:29 God declares what He has provided for Adam and Eve to eat: every plant yielding seed and every tree which has fruit yielding seed. THEN in verse 30 God continues to declare what He has provided for every beast or animal that moves on the earth and birds, to eat: every green plant.
Later, after the flood, in Genesis 9:3-4, God declares that He has a DIFFERENT DIET for man AND (I BELIEVE) for the animals. If Genesis 9:3 is ONLY a new diet given to man, then God seems to have forgotten the animals. But He didn't forget the animals in Genesis 1:30. He declared what they could eat. So I believe that God is including the animals in His new diet in Genesis 9:3 as well. It seems to me that God is instructing Noah about his new diet AND the new diet of the animals. What is that new diet? "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, AS I GAVE THE GREEN PLANT. Who did He give the green plant to? Both MAN AND ANIMALS.
Obviously I cannot prove this from the scripture, but I believe "every moving thing that is alive" for MAN was referring to ONLY CLEAN ANIMALS, besides the plants and the fruits. However, "every moving that is alive" for ANIMALS included ALL THE CATEGORIES: plants, fruits, clean animals and unclean animals. But, you might object, there were no designated clean or unclean animals until the Law of Moses listed them. That would be incorrect. Even Noah was told BEFORE THE FLOOD to take seven pairs of CLEAN animals and one pair of UNCLEAN animals on to the ark. This was WAY BEFORE MOSES TIME. Also Abraham, long before the Law of Moses, NEVER offered an animal sacrifice with an UNCLEAN animal. In fact, let's go all the way back to the beginning. ABEL offered a sacrifice FROM HIS FLOCK. How did he know that he couldn't sacrifice a pig to God?
I think it's obvious that God told them what animals were clean and which ones were unclean, shortly after Creation - or to be more precise, AFTER THE FALL. In fact, it would only make sense that NOTHING that God created would be called unclean. So, when man sinned, God apparently showed them that He would only accept a BLOOD SACRIFICE, AND ONLY CERTAIN ANIMALS COULD BE SACRIFICED, WHICH HE CALLED CLEAN. Unclean animals sacrificed to Him would be an abomination!
But why would Jesus declare all foods clean? If "foods" here REFERS only to clean animals, as I have suggested, then why would Jesus declare all CLEAN animals CLEAN? Isn't that obvious? Apparently not, because MANY JEWS would NOT EAT MEAT FROM ANY ANIMAL, EVEN CLEAN ANIMALS. They were basically vegetarians. We know Jesus ate meat on several occasions, so He was never a vegetarian. We also know that some meat in the meat market was offered to idols, so many Jews, wouldn't eat it. But that never bothered Paul, except when it wounded the conscience of another believer. Then, he would abstain. Even today, being a vegetarian is pretty much required in some denominations and some religions. But the New Testament, or more accurately, Jesus, does not require it. It is also my belief that even if a Christian CHOOSES to eat meat from AN UNCLEAN animal, such as pork, or lobster, or shrimp, etc., that that is not a sin. Why would I say that? Because Jesus said that NOTHING that goes into a man's stomach defiles the man. However, personally, I believe it is more beneficial to my body to eat only meat from clean animals. But I am not legalistic about it. Once in a while, I will have bacon, or sausage, etc.
What about Peter's vision in Acts 10:9-35? Doesn't God tell Peter three times in a vision that He has cleansed basically all unclean animals, and that it is now okay for him (and by implication, all Christians) to kill and eat them? Well, is that the conclusion that Peter came to, after his vision? Look at his conclusion after seeing that vision, in Acts 10:28 - " ...You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; AND YET GOD HAS SHOWN ME THAT I SHOULD NOT CALL ANY MAN UNHOLY OR UNCLEAN." The vision showed Peter that GOD HAD CLEANSED THE GENTILES, NOT UNCLEAN ANIMALS. Some Christians persist, however, in saying, "Well, yes, but God ALSO cleansed unclean animals, so all animals are now clean." I don't think so. That's not what Peter understood.
By the way, if all animals are clean now, and we can eat any of them, then why did Jesus say in Luke 11:11-12 and Matthew 7:9-11: "Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he?"; "Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give GOOD GIFTS to your children, how much more will your Father Who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him?" It's clear to me that Jesus is saying that a snake, a scorpion, or a stone are not good gifts for someone who is hungry. However, if all animals are now clean, then a snake or a scorpion would apparently be a fine meal to give to your child.
What about the parable of the dragnet in Matthew 13:47-50? What were the "bad fish" that they threw away? It appears that they were unclean species. Of course, if all animals are now clean, there shouldn't be any bad fish.
|
|
e v e
Full Member
Posts: 214
|
Post by e v e on Aug 20, 2022 12:31:53 GMT -8
it’s quite worse.
we are imprisoned
on this satanic earth.
these bodies are of the sin realm.
the fleshbodies we are imprisoned in
because of adam are ape bodies.
animal bodies.
God did not create this earth or body.
|
|
e v e
Full Member
Posts: 214
|
Post by e v e on Aug 20, 2022 12:35:17 GMT -8
the context of the prophets is
mostly not this current earth
…knowing that can give context to
reading His words
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2022 21:09:12 GMT -8
The OT laws were a symbolic shadow of spiritual truths.
We are not suppose to follow them in the NT.
|
|
slyzr
Full Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by slyzr on Aug 21, 2022 17:10:46 GMT -8
The OT laws were a symbolic shadow of spiritual truths. We are not suppose to follow them in the NT. The Jew's had don't eat the pig. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2022 17:20:43 GMT -8
The OT laws were a symbolic shadow of spiritual truths. We are not suppose to follow them in the NT. The Jew's had don't eat the pig.
That's very true, Slyzr.
Good to see you here, man, welcome!
Thankfully, Jesus died for our sins so we can eat bacon!
Just not too much!!
Lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwight92070 on Aug 23, 2022 17:47:05 GMT -8
Not at all. Defile here means "imposing guilt on". We know that, because Jesus goes on in that chapter to list those things that come from the heart that DO DEFILE us, all of which are sins. You are not guilty of sin if you eat pork, or other unclean animals, nor am I. That is, you are not defiled or guilty. My personal conviction is to generally stay away from unclean foods, because I believe they are not healthy for my body. Even Jesus said that a snake or a scorpion is not a good gift for our hungry children, but He did not call it a sin. I'm not imposing my conviction on anyone. It is my belief that the category of clean and unclean animals began after the fall and has continued and will continue until Christ returns. If there are animals in heaven, we know that no unclean animal will be there. Revelations 21:27
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2022 20:05:15 GMT -8
3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving;
5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. (1 Tim. 4:3-5 NKJ)
|
|
|
|
Post by dwight92070 on Aug 24, 2022 13:13:14 GMT -8
3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. (1 Tim. 4:3-5 NKJ) Obviously, this has been interpreted different ways. Here's how I see it. Notice the topic in verse one. In latter times, some will depart from the faith - side note, you can't depart from something that you didn't have to begin with. " ... giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy ... forbidding to marry and (see verse 3-5 above)"
So forbidding to marry is listening to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons - side note, Catholic priests for example. But it is also a deceiving spirit and a doctrine of demons to be told that you must abstain from eating FOODS. Unclean animals are not considered foods. God said they are detestable and unclean to you - no, we're not under the law, but the law informs us of God's opinions and attitudes about things, which don't change. But if it's also a deceitful, demonic spirit that tells us to abstain from eating foods, and IF foods here includes unclean animals (which I do not believe), then the law was inspired by deceitful, demonic spirits, telling the Jews to abstain from unclean animals. But we know GOD inspired the law and told the Jews to abstain from unclean animals, NOT DEMONIC spirits. But if "foods" in verse 3 refers to clean animals, then it could be demonic, because who would command you to abstain from good, clean animals for food? The devil would, because he doesn't want you to be healthy, not to mention he would love to put meat companies out of business.
To summarize, the word "foods" in verse 3, IMO, refers only to only clean animals (and plants and fruits), not unclean animals, since unclean animals are not food. But when did the devil command anybody to abstain from clean animals for food? Lot's of times. Some religions and some denominations forbid their followers from eating meat at all. The Seventh Day Adventists are strong on avoiding meat, which approaches forbidding meat. Many Jews, in Paul's day, would not eat meat, because some of it had been offered to idols. Even today some will not eat meat because some organization, religious or otherwise, has told then they should not. THAT is a demonic, deceiving spirit.
For every creature of God is good (again, I believe he's referring to clean animals here, in keeping with the topic of foods), and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving. Or did God change His mind about animals that He called detestable in the law? Are they now, under the new covenant, no longer detestable and even "good"? Remember, Jesus Himself said that snakes and scorpions are NOT GOOD for food.
|
|
|
|
Post by resurrection33 on Sept 5, 2022 11:19:06 GMT -8
I was reading Mark 7:17-20 and I was thinking about how many Christians seem to interpret this as Jesus freeing people to now eat pretty much anything, or I should say ANY animal, ANY tree fruit, and any plant. Of course, they zero in on the last sentence of verse 19, where Mark injects his comment: ("Thus He declared all foods clean.") I don't think Mark is saying that Jesus is now declaring all ANIMALS clean, such as pork, lobster, crab, swordfish, octopus, shrimp, worms, tarantula, spiders, ants, caterpillars, moths, leeches, etc., etc. Mark did NOT say ANIMALS, he said FOODS. In my understanding, unclean animals are NOT FOODS.
Maybe they were at one time after the flood (Genesis 9:3), but I suspect that even that verse is misinterpreted. In Genesis 1:29 God declares what He has provided for Adam and Eve to eat: every plant yielding seed and every tree which has fruit yielding seed. THEN in verse 30 God continues to declare what He has provided for every beast or animal that moves on the earth and birds, to eat: every green plant.
Later, after the flood, in Genesis 9:3-4, God declares that He has a DIFFERENT DIET for man AND (I BELIEVE) for the animals. If Genesis 9:3 is ONLY a new diet given to man, then God seems to have forgotten the animals. But He didn't forget the animals in Genesis 1:30. He declared what they could eat. So I believe that God is including the animals in His new diet in Genesis 9:3 as well. It seems to me that God is instructing Noah about his new diet AND the new diet of the animals. What is that new diet? "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, AS I GAVE THE GREEN PLANT. Who did He give the green plant to? Both MAN AND ANIMALS.
Obviously I cannot prove this from the scripture, but I believe "every moving thing that is alive" for MAN was referring to ONLY CLEAN ANIMALS, besides the plants and the fruits. However, "every moving that is alive" for ANIMALS included ALL THE CATEGORIES: plants, fruits, clean animals and unclean animals. But, you might object, there were no designated clean or unclean animals until the Law of Moses listed them. That would be incorrect. Even Noah was told BEFORE THE FLOOD to take seven pairs of CLEAN animals and one pair of UNCLEAN animals on to the ark. This was WAY BEFORE MOSES TIME. Also Abraham, long before the Law of Moses, NEVER offered an animal sacrifice with an UNCLEAN animal. In fact, let's go all the way back to the beginning. ABEL offered a sacrifice FROM HIS FLOCK. How did he know that he couldn't sacrifice a pig to God?
I think it's obvious that God told them what animals were clean and which ones were unclean, shortly after Creation - or to be more precise, AFTER THE FALL. In fact, it would only make sense that NOTHING that God created would be called unclean. So, when man sinned, God apparently showed them that He would only accept a BLOOD SACRIFICE, AND ONLY CERTAIN ANIMALS COULD BE SACRIFICED, WHICH HE CALLED CLEAN. Unclean animals sacrificed to Him would be an abomination!
But why would Jesus declare all foods clean? If "foods" here REFERS only to clean animals, as I have suggested, then why would Jesus declare all CLEAN animals CLEAN? Isn't that obvious? Apparently not, because MANY JEWS would NOT EAT MEAT FROM ANY ANIMAL, EVEN CLEAN ANIMALS. They were basically vegetarians. We know Jesus ate meat on several occasions, so He was never a vegetarian. We also know that some meat in the meat market was offered to idols, so many Jews, wouldn't eat it. But that never bothered Paul, except when it wounded the conscience of another believer. Then, he would abstain. Even today, being a vegetarian is pretty much required in some denominations and some religions. But the New Testament, or more accurately, Jesus, does not require it. It is also my belief that even if a Christian CHOOSES to eat meat from AN UNCLEAN animal, such as pork, or lobster, or shrimp, etc., that that is not a sin. Why would I say that? Because Jesus said that NOTHING that goes into a man's stomach defiles the man. However, personally, I believe it is more beneficial to my body to eat only meat from clean animals. But I am not legalistic about it. Once in a while, I will have bacon, or sausage, etc.
What about Peter's vision in Acts 10:9-35? Doesn't God tell Peter three times in a vision that He has cleansed basically all unclean animals, and that it is now okay for him (and by implication, all Christians) to kill and eat them? Well, is that the conclusion that Peter came to, after his vision? Look at his conclusion after seeing that vision, in Acts 10:28 - " ...You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; AND YET GOD HAS SHOWN ME THAT I SHOULD NOT CALL ANY MAN UNHOLY OR UNCLEAN." The vision showed Peter that GOD HAD CLEANSED THE GENTILES, NOT UNCLEAN ANIMALS. Some Christians persist, however, in saying, "Well, yes, but God ALSO cleansed unclean animals, so all animals are now clean." I don't think so. That's not what Peter understood.
By the way, if all animals are clean now, and we can eat any of them, then why did Jesus say in Luke 11:11-12 and Matthew 7:9-11: "Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he?"; "Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give GOOD GIFTS to your children, how much more will your Father Who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him?" It's clear to me that Jesus is saying that a snake, a scorpion, or a stone are not good gifts for someone who is hungry. However, if all animals are now clean, then a snake or a scorpion would apparently be a fine meal to give to your child.
What about the parable of the dragnet in Matthew 13:47-50? What were the "bad fish" that they threw away? It appears that they were unclean species. Of course, if all animals are now clean, there shouldn't be any bad fish.
I've noted some of what God told us not to eat, in the Old Testament, is some of the most unhealthy food on earth. |
|
eleos
New Member
God is Love.
Posts: 44
|
Post by eleos on Sept 27, 2022 11:55:08 GMT -8
I was reading Mark 7:17-20 and I was thinking about how many Christians seem to interpret this as Jesus freeing people to now eat pretty much anything, or I should say ANY animal, ANY tree fruit, and any plant. Of course, they zero in on the last sentence of verse 19, where Mark injects his comment: ("Thus He declared all foods clean.") I don't think Mark is saying that Jesus is now declaring all ANIMALS clean, such as pork, lobster, crab, swordfish, octopus, shrimp, worms, tarantula, spiders, ants, caterpillars, moths, leeches, etc., etc. Mark did NOT say ANIMALS, he said FOODS. In my understanding, unclean animals are NOT FOODS.
Maybe they were at one time after the flood (Genesis 9:3), but I suspect that even that verse is misinterpreted. In Genesis 1:29 God declares what He has provided for Adam and Eve to eat: every plant yielding seed and every tree which has fruit yielding seed. THEN in verse 30 God continues to declare what He has provided for every beast or animal that moves on the earth and birds, to eat: every green plant.
Later, after the flood, in Genesis 9:3-4, God declares that He has a DIFFERENT DIET for man AND (I BELIEVE) for the animals. If Genesis 9:3 is ONLY a new diet given to man, then God seems to have forgotten the animals. But He didn't forget the animals in Genesis 1:30. He declared what they could eat. So I believe that God is including the animals in His new diet in Genesis 9:3 as well. It seems to me that God is instructing Noah about his new diet AND the new diet of the animals. What is that new diet? "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, AS I GAVE THE GREEN PLANT. Who did He give the green plant to? Both MAN AND ANIMALS.
Obviously I cannot prove this from the scripture, but I believe "every moving thing that is alive" for MAN was referring to ONLY CLEAN ANIMALS, besides the plants and the fruits. However, "every moving that is alive" for ANIMALS included ALL THE CATEGORIES: plants, fruits, clean animals and unclean animals. But, you might object, there were no designated clean or unclean animals until the Law of Moses listed them. That would be incorrect. Even Noah was told BEFORE THE FLOOD to take seven pairs of CLEAN animals and one pair of UNCLEAN animals on to the ark. This was WAY BEFORE MOSES TIME. Also Abraham, long before the Law of Moses, NEVER offered an animal sacrifice with an UNCLEAN animal. In fact, let's go all the way back to the beginning. ABEL offered a sacrifice FROM HIS FLOCK. How did he know that he couldn't sacrifice a pig to God?
I think it's obvious that God told them what animals were clean and which ones were unclean, shortly after Creation - or to be more precise, AFTER THE FALL. In fact, it would only make sense that NOTHING that God created would be called unclean. So, when man sinned, God apparently showed them that He would only accept a BLOOD SACRIFICE, AND ONLY CERTAIN ANIMALS COULD BE SACRIFICED, WHICH HE CALLED CLEAN. Unclean animals sacrificed to Him would be an abomination!
But why would Jesus declare all foods clean? If "foods" here REFERS only to clean animals, as I have suggested, then why would Jesus declare all CLEAN animals CLEAN? Isn't that obvious? Apparently not, because MANY JEWS would NOT EAT MEAT FROM ANY ANIMAL, EVEN CLEAN ANIMALS. They were basically vegetarians. We know Jesus ate meat on several occasions, so He was never a vegetarian. We also know that some meat in the meat market was offered to idols, so many Jews, wouldn't eat it. But that never bothered Paul, except when it wounded the conscience of another believer. Then, he would abstain. Even today, being a vegetarian is pretty much required in some denominations and some religions. But the New Testament, or more accurately, Jesus, does not require it. It is also my belief that even if a Christian CHOOSES to eat meat from AN UNCLEAN animal, such as pork, or lobster, or shrimp, etc., that that is not a sin. Why would I say that? Because Jesus said that NOTHING that goes into a man's stomach defiles the man. However, personally, I believe it is more beneficial to my body to eat only meat from clean animals. But I am not legalistic about it. Once in a while, I will have bacon, or sausage, etc.
What about Peter's vision in Acts 10:9-35? Doesn't God tell Peter three times in a vision that He has cleansed basically all unclean animals, and that it is now okay for him (and by implication, all Christians) to kill and eat them? Well, is that the conclusion that Peter came to, after his vision? Look at his conclusion after seeing that vision, in Acts 10:28 - " ...You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; AND YET GOD HAS SHOWN ME THAT I SHOULD NOT CALL ANY MAN UNHOLY OR UNCLEAN." The vision showed Peter that GOD HAD CLEANSED THE GENTILES, NOT UNCLEAN ANIMALS. Some Christians persist, however, in saying, "Well, yes, but God ALSO cleansed unclean animals, so all animals are now clean." I don't think so. That's not what Peter understood.
By the way, if all animals are clean now, and we can eat any of them, then why did Jesus say in Luke 11:11-12 and Matthew 7:9-11: "Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he?"; "Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give GOOD GIFTS to your children, how much more will your Father Who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him?" It's clear to me that Jesus is saying that a snake, a scorpion, or a stone are not good gifts for someone who is hungry. However, if all animals are now clean, then a snake or a scorpion would apparently be a fine meal to give to your child.
What about the parable of the dragnet in Matthew 13:47-50? What were the "bad fish" that they threw away? It appears that they were unclean species. Of course, if all animals are now clean, there shouldn't be any bad fish.
The Greek manuscripts of the book of Mark do not actually contain the words, “Thus He declared all foods clean.” Check the old King James Version of Mark 7:19. It reads quite differently. Most, if not all of the unclean animals are either predators and/or the earths "garbage cans" and are more prone in causing sickness and/or disease. Not saying they all do ... all the time .... but are more prone to it. That being said ... I do not find what we eat is a sin. |
|
