We are what we eat

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
And I responded by demonstrating that your interpretation of those verses is grammatically impossible. So you haven't proved anything.

You've made this claim, but haven't connected any dots yet. Where's the proof?

Not a straw man argument at all. The context of Paul's statement "you are a temple of the Holy Spirit" makes clear he is referring to Christians, not to everyone.

Again, you seem to be ignoring what I'm posting. Here it is again:
Acts 17:28 28For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

So there you have it. Paul isn't going around pointing out that the spirit isn't for some "Christians only club". Thank God we have his word to rebuke and correct those who would do their best to pretend the gospel is just for an elite few.


Now this is what a straw man argument is! Of course the argument "the digestive system somehow negates God's dietary laws" is preposterous - but then I never suggested it.

Then what are you suggesting by this verse?

And the idea that stuff is getting cleansed in the sewer is a misinterpretation based on the rather opaque KJV translation. Again, I have never put that idea forward - it's your own invention.

Here's just a sampling of translations, all of which point out that the food is going through the digestive tract. FAIL. You're not addressing the fact that the digestive system doesn't annul commandments.

Note the use or parentheses. These are nowhere to be found in the original manuscripts. They are marginal notes that appeared in the 4th century, and only found in the Codex Bezai. They migrated into the texts of translations as parenthetical comments. They have nothing to do with the subject of ritual washing to prevent defilement. You still have yet to provide any argument that assumes that what is nowhere defined as food is all of a sudden not only redefined as food, but clean to eat as well, and how the digestive system somehow did this suddenly while Jesus was talking about ritual washing, and the digestive system.

New International Version
For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

New Living Translation
Food doesn’t go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer.” (By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God’s eyes.)

English Standard Version
since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

Berean Study Bible
because it does not enter his heart, but it goes into the stomach and then is eliminated.” (Thus all foods are clean.)

Berean Literal Bible
because it does not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the sewer?" (Thus purifying all foods.)

New American Standard Bible
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

New King James Version
because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?”

King James Bible
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

Christian Standard Bible
For it doesn't go into his heart but into the stomach and is eliminated" (thus he declared all foods clean).

Contemporary English Version
It doesn't go into your heart, but into your stomach, and then out of your body." By saying this, Jesus meant that all foods were fit to eat.

Good News Translation
because it does not go into your heart but into your stomach and then goes on out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared that all foods are fit to be eaten.)

Holman Christian Standard Bible
For it doesn't go into his heart but into the stomach and is eliminated." (As a result, He made all foods clean.)

International Standard Version
Because it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then into the sewer, thereby expelling all foods."

NET Bible
For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer." (This means all foods are clean.)

New Heart English Bible
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, cleansing all the foods?"

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“Because it does not enter his heart, but his belly, and is discharged by excretion, which purifies all foods.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation
It doesn't go into his thoughts but into his stomach and then into a toilet." (By saying this, Jesus declared all foods acceptable.)

New American Standard 1977
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

Jubilee Bible 2000
Because it enters not into his heart, but into the belly, and the man goes out to the privy and purges all foods.

King James 2000 Bible
Because it enters not into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the drain, purging all foods?

American King James Version
Because it enters not into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the draught, purging all meats?

American Standard Version
because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said , making all meats clean.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats?

Darby Bible Translation
because it does not enter into his heart but into his belly, and goes out into the draught, purging all meats?

English Revised Version
because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean.

Webster's Bible Translation
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all kinds of food.

Weymouth New Testament
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and passes away ejected from him?" By these words Jesus pronounced all kinds of food clean.

World English Bible
because it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus purifying all foods?"

Young's Literal Translation
because it doth not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it doth go out, purifying all the meats.'
 

Deborah_

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2015
901
855
93
Swansea, Wales
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Well, there you are. The majority of translations agree that it's Jesus declaring all foods 'clean' and available to eat.
The parentheses "aren't in the original" because the original had no punctuation at all. But you can't write intelligible English without punctuation, so it has to be put in as part of the translation.
 

Taken

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 6, 2018
24,508
12,924
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Food ~ another perspective.

Eat what is local to the area you inhabit.
It will go to your stomach and...
It will sustain your natural body...
UNTIL it's natural blood death.

If you believe God is all places.
Eat what His Spiritual Knowledge says...
It will go to your spirit in your heart;
And sustain a quickened spirit forever.

Glory To God,
Taken
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Well, there you are. The majority of translations agree that it's Jesus declaring all foods 'clean' and available to eat.
The parentheses "aren't in the original" because the original had no punctuation at all. But you can't write intelligible English without punctuation, so it has to be put in as part of the translation.

Again, you're still ignoring the fact that nowhere in the bible is swine, or shellfish considered food. This is your assumption, and there is no merit to it whatsoever. The parenthesis is included in the translation because "thus he declared" isn't in the text at all. It's in the margins. You can go to google scholar and actually see the jpeg images of it yourself. It's quite simply not in the text at all. Mark never wrote it. Jesus never said it.

It's a conclusion that simply doesn't follow from the context. If they had approached Jesus to inform him that one of his disciples had failed to wash after laying with his wife, Jesus would have compared the ontological origins of defilement to a woman's monthly cycle, and the parenthetical remark would have then been (Thus he declared all sexual activity clean).

It doesn't matter if someone is having sex with their neighbor's wife because we have a similar biological function taking place to cleanse them. See how that works?

We could extend this principle to drug use as well. There are biological processes that cleanse the body of drugs, alcohol, etc. it's all good, and nothing is to be rejected, but instead everything received in thanksgiving. It's complete nonsense.

You're still ignoring how a biological process that wasn't instituted with Christ is somehow supposed to abrogate or annul the dietary laws.

You still haven't explained how Christ's own explanation of how one is defiled has anything to do with abrogating the dietary laws.

You have yet to show one shred of evidence from the texts that swine, shellfish, etc. are considered food.

If Christ had declared anything one puts into their mouth clean to eat, then why didn't Peter follow that declaration by eating pork, or shellfish? He clearly states that he has never eaten anything "common or unclean" when he has his vision years after Christ has died.

Why do the elders of the church point out that new converts refrain from eating anything torn or strangled? (Acts 15:19-21) That shouldn't make any difference as it's already been cleansed, right? Torn or strangled animals are an explicit reference to the dietary laws which were still being upheld years after Christ's supposed declaration. Why?

These are blatant contradictions to your theory.

Just because the digestive process cleanses all food, doesn't mean that swine and shellfish are now considered food. That's a blatant non sequitur. Likewise just because the menstrual cycle cleanses the womb, it doesn't then follow that any and all sexual activity is now acceptable and legitimate.
 

Deborah_

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2015
901
855
93
Swansea, Wales
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
The parenthesis is included in the translation because "thus he declared" isn't in the text at all. It's in the margins. You can go to google scholar and actually see the jpeg images of it yourself. It's quite simply not in the text at all. Mark never wrote it. Jesus never said it.
As I have already pointed out, one of the possible translations of the word 'katharizo' is "declare clean". The word 'declare' in English is included in the Greek word - it hasn't been added, in the margin or anywhere. It is in the text.

You have yet to show one shred of evidence from the texts that swine, shellfish, etc. are considered food.
It is just your assumption that they weren't, and you have shown no evidence for that from the texts either. But if they weren't considered as food, people would not have had to be told not to eat them. And if unclean animals were not thought of at least potentially as food, Peter's vision in Acts 10 (and his conversation with God) would make very little sense.

It's a conclusion that simply doesn't follow from the context
Well, we don't need to argue from context, do we? It's in the text.

You still haven't explained how Christ's own explanation of how one is defiled has anything to do with abrogating the dietary laws.
It needs to be explained? If we are only defiled from the inside (by lust, hatred, murder, theft, sexual immorality, etc) then we don't need to worry about being defiled by external material things such as food, lepers and dead bodies. Sorry, but that seems blatantly obvious to me.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
As I have already pointed out, one of the possible translations of the word 'katharizo' is "declare clean". The word 'declare' in English is included in the Greek word - it hasn't been added, in the margin or anywhere. It is in the text.

The glaring problem with this theory is that the digestive process doesn't declare anything, and the digestive process is what is in view here. He explicitly states that the "food goes into the belly and into the sewer". There is no declaration of cleaned food because of the digestive process. just as there is no declaration of clean sexual activity just because of a woman's menstrual cycle; no declaration of all drugs being clean due to liver function.

It is just your assumption that they weren't, and you have shown no evidence for that from the texts either.

Here it is again for your edification. "into the belly and into the sewer, cleansing/purging all foods". He's explicitly referring to the digestive process up to and including its discharge into the sewer. The body cleanses/ purges the food into the sewer, but this doesn't then make whatever you put into your mouth food.

But if they weren't considered as food, people would not have had to be told not to eat them.

They weren't told not to eat them. They were told it isn't food, and that to eat it was "an abomination" to God. An Abomination means that it is 'detestable'.

And if unclean animals were not thought of at least potentially as food, Peter's vision in Acts 10 (and his conversation with God) would make very little sense.

Sodomy is thought of as sexual intercourse; it isn't. Pretending to be a man when one is actually a woman, doesn't make them a man. Thinking that something is food when it isn't, doesn't make it food.

If we are only defiled from the inside (by lust, hatred, murder, theft, sexual immorality, etc) then we don't need to worry about being defiled by external material things such as food, lepers and dead bodies. Sorry, but that seems blatantly obvious to me.

it's the same argument that is now allowing openly gay men and women to pastor Christian churches. It's the same argument used by drug addicts as well. Once a person has defiled themselves in their heart, it truly doesn't matter whether they eat garbage or not because they truly are what they're eating. They're already defiled, and you can't defile filth.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
As I have already

...ignored what I just posted AGAIN.

Here is it again, you're still ignoring the fact that nowhere in the bible is swine, or shellfish considered food. This is your assumption, and there is no merit to it whatsoever. The parenthesis is included in the translation because "thus he declared" isn't in the text at all. It's in the margins. You can go to google scholar and actually see the jpeg images of it yourself. It's quite simply not in the text at all. Mark never wrote it. Jesus never said it.

It's a conclusion that simply doesn't follow from the context. If they had approached Jesus to inform him that one of his disciples had failed to wash after laying with his wife, Jesus would have compared the ontological origins of defilement to a woman's monthly cycle, and the parenthetical remark would have then been (Thus he declared all sexual activity clean).

It doesn't matter if someone is having sex with their neighbor's wife because we have a similar biological function taking place to cleanse them. See how that works?

We could extend this principle to drug use as well. There are biological processes that cleanse the body of drugs, alcohol, etc. it's all good, and nothing is to be rejected, but instead everything received in thanksgiving. It's complete nonsense.

You're still ignoring how a biological process that wasn't instituted with Christ is somehow supposed to abrogate or annul the dietary laws.

You still haven't explained how Christ's own explanation of how one is defiled has anything to do with abrogating the dietary laws.

You have yet to show one shred of evidence from the texts that swine, shellfish, etc. are considered food.

If Christ had declared anything one puts into their mouth clean to eat, then why didn't Peter follow that declaration by eating pork, or shellfish? He clearly states that he has never eaten anything "common or unclean" when he has his vision years after Christ has died.

Why do the elders of the church point out that new converts refrain from eating anything torn or strangled? (Acts 15:19-21) That shouldn't make any difference as it's already been cleansed, right? Torn or strangled animals are an explicit reference to the dietary laws which were still being upheld years after Christ's supposed declaration. Why?

These are blatant contradictions to your theory.

Just because the digestive process cleanses all food, doesn't mean that swine and shellfish are now considered food. That's a blatant non sequitur. Likewise just because the menstrual cycle cleanses the womb, it doesn't then follow that any and all sexual activity is now acceptable and legitimate.
 

Deborah_

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2015
901
855
93
Swansea, Wales
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
I don't see any point in continuing this conversation - if conversation is even the right word for it. You evidently have nothing new to say.
Any intelligent person reading through this thread can draw their own conclusions without our help.
 
Last edited:

JohnPaul

Soldier of Jehovah and Christ
Jun 10, 2019
3,274
2,567
113
New Jersey
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Here's a more complete quote:



Note that he specifically mentions foods that God created to be received? God didn't create swine to be received. To then point out that it is sanctified by the word should be your first clue to look in the word to find where God says it is now acceptable to eat what he explicitly states is "an abomination".
I've always understood Jesus Christ liberated us from the dietary laws, is it okay to eat chicken? They are not cloven foot.
 

Deborah_

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2015
901
855
93
Swansea, Wales
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
I've always understood Jesus Christ liberated us from the dietary laws, is it okay to eat chicken? They are not cloven foot.
Yes, He did.
So chicken is OK for us to eat anyway - but actually the Jews consider it OK as well. (The "cloven foot" rule only applies to mammals. Birds are all 'clean' except for a specified list of species - basically the birds of prey)
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
I've always understood Jesus Christ liberated us from the dietary laws, is it okay to eat chicken? They are not cloven foot.
How could he have liberated us from the dietary laws when gentiles never kept the dietary laws to begin with? Mark's account of Jesus' interaction with the legalists had nothing to do with the dietary laws in the first place. In Matthew's account of this discussion, Jesus concludes that "eating with unwashed hands does not defile a man". He doesn't say that eating unclean animals doesn't defile a man because his disciples weren't accused of eating unclean animals.