Is it okay to eat pork?

[GracePeace]

Not only in the synagogues. Where their was no Jewish presence in some cities he would meet people wherever they gathered together...on riverbanks, in homes. But never on Sunday... Not once. Or any other day. Not that he wouldn't witness or pray or worship probably every day, but sacred solemn meetings for corporate worship in the early church for several hundred years after the resurrection, were held on the Sabbath. This was the common practise not just for converted Jews, but in nations where there was no Jewish presence such as in Britain. The early Celtic church of Britain were Sabbath keepers. As was the Assyrian church of the east, and the church in Goa begun by the apostle Thomas, even churches as close as Italy itself, except in Rome. Sabbath keeping as a practise didn't cease without opposition and persecution.

So? Even if I grant everything you're saying, it, in itself, proves nothing. The Orthodox claim icon veneration goes back to the original church--what that proves is that error crept in early, it doesn't change the text, which says we are free to either observe the day or not, and that Sabbath was a mere shadow of things to come.

 

[Behold]

The topic of discussion at the Counsel of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was do Christians have to keep the Law of Moses to be saved.

Something that is interesting to understand, is, in fact.... this Jerusalem council meeting, where all the Apostles came and met Paul...

Most of them didn't understand much about the Grace of God.......and ZERO regarding Paul's Gospel.... apparently.

As Acts 15, is about 15 yrs AFTER Jesus ascended back into Heaven.... so, 15 yrs later, some of the Apostle, or all of them, except for Paul, had no understanding YET< of the Grace of God...= that is the "Gospel of the Grace of God".
After this meeting... with Paul, there was a big Theological change in their thinking, and specifically regarding the LAW..

See, .. Reader.. the Born Again, are ""NOT under the LAW... but under Grace""".. This is Romans 6.
That's PAUL's Gospel. .. and that is the Gospel in the "Time of the Gentiles", and we are in it.
So, once He was there with all the Apostles, Paul was able to help them come to the revelation of the Grace of God, exactly as Jesus had personally given Paul the revelation of "The Gospel of the Grace of God".
Which Paul called "MY Gospel" 3x in the NT.

Now, let me show you a KEY to "rightly diving" the NT..

When we understand that some of the Apostles, were still caught up and dialed into Moses Law, then this helps us to understand why some of them wrote verses that are more Theologically Legalist.

No Scholar and noone knows exactly when all the Apostles began to Teach Paul's Gospel, that has NO LAW in it... but, a case could be made that Acts 15, was the genuine turning point.

 

[GracePeace]

That council didn't include a lot of things. Like preaching the gospel. Baptism. It only adjudicated on things over which there was controversy or confusion. 4 things. Apart from those 4 things, the scope for Christian living according to those today who use it to deny God's authority in appointing a day sacred to Him, is very wide isn't it. Get away with anything if you've a mind to.
But why do you think they only made recommendations regarding those 4 things? Because
KJV Acts 15:21
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
.

Yeah, "The Gentiles could easily be acquainted with these four prohibitions, because they have had these things being taught in their cities, BUT we're not burdening them further."

Interesting that the Apostles, in your view, left them to wallow in sins that would damn them to hell fire.

 

[GracePeace]

Something that is interesting to understand, is, in fact.... this Jerusalem council meeting, where all the Apostles came and met Paul...

Most of them didn't understand much about the Grace of God.......and ZERO regarding Paul's Gospel.... apparently.

As Acts 15, is about 15 yrs AFTER Jesus ascended back into Heaven.... so, 15 yrs later, some of the Apostle, or all of them, except for Paul, had no understanding YET< of the Grace of God...= that is the "Gospel of the Grace of God".
After this meeting... with Paul, there was a big Theological change in their thinking, and specifically regarding the LAW..

Not to denigrate him, but even Peter, the head of the Apostles, didn't immediately understand the Gospel--eg, didn't understand that Gentiles could be saved at all! The other Jewish Christians were also astonished that God was saving Gentiles--despite being "Scriptural masters", which they boast about, they were clueless as to God's Word. It took an act of God to open their eyes.

Absolutely, the majority of the Jews were blind to the real meaning of the Gospel.
Later, when Paul went to Jerusalem, they and James (the same James from whom men had come--seemingly without his permission--and challenged Paul's Gospel in his own churches) actually challenged him to prove he walked orderly and according to the Law. What did Paul do? He became a Jew to Jews. He didn't want to blow his cover in Jerusalem, surrounded by Jews. Does Paul walk orderly? Yes, of course he "fulfills the righteous requirement of the Law". Is it contrary to the Law or tradition? No, because "through the Law I died to the Law"--the Law Itself demands its own retirement viz. Jews who have died (and we die when we believe in Christ, share in His death), so Paul's deadness to the Law is not contrary to the Law. So, he can affirm that he walks orderly and according to the Torah, so as to not blow his cover, without really lying.

But, yes, behind their backs (in the ancient world, it was possible--not now, really), he really was teaching the things the Jewish believers, "zealous for Torah", were in an uproar about.

 

[Davy]

I wanted to make sure we were on the same page, because many others on your side are not on the same page.
I am glad you agree--at least one of you is honest!

Not sure what you mean by that last statement. I'm not Jewish. I'm a Protestant Christian with roots from the first French Protestants in old Europe. My ancestors fled to America because of persecution by the Catholic Church in old France.

1. Either way, it's beside the point, because the discussion centers around sin and righteousness, not health.

Oh, I strongly disagree.

The matter does... center around the health issue. It's about God's creation science. That is Apostle Paul's meaning when he said, "meats created to be received" in 1 Timothy 4:3. He was referring to God's Old Testament healthy food list in Deuteronomy 14.

2. The healthiest way to eat was given in Genesis 1--vegetables and fruit.
This is being discovered by science now--eating low protein activates SIRT2 anti-aging pathway, flooding your body with amino acids shuts that pathway down temporarily (as long as you're eating that way).

Yes, we know that from the Book of Daniel also. Studies have been shown that kind of diet makes athletes' bodies have more endurance for long distance type competitions.

The "healthiest" way to eat was NOT outlined at Sinai.

God did give the Israelites a health list to go by, which was given via Moses in Deuteronomy 14 and Leviticus 11. So let's not say God didn't show that at Sinai.


I will not try to justify men's ignorance with thinking under Christ we can eat whatever we want and stay healthy. I never said it was a Salvation issue. I said it was a health issue. So I don't know why some keep trying to make it a religious Salvation issue.

 

[GracePeace]

Not sure what you mean by that last statement. I'm not Jewish. I'm a Protestant Christian with roots from the first French Protestants in old Europe. My ancestors fled to America because of persecution by the Catholic Church in old France.


Oh, I strongly disagree.

The matter does... center around the health issue. It's about God's creation science. That is Apostle Paul's meaning when he said, "meats created to be received" in 1 Timothy 4:3. He was referring to God's Old Testament healthy food list in Deuteronomy 14.


Yes, we know that from the Book of Daniel also. Studies have been shown that kind of diet makes athletes' bodies have more endurance for long distance type competitions.


God did give the Israelites a health list to go by, which was given via Moses in Deuteronomy 14 and Leviticus 11. So let's not say God didn't show that at Sinai.


I will not try to justify men's ignorance with thinking under Christ we can eat whatever we want and stay healthy. I never said it was a Salvation issue. I said it was a health issue. So I don't know why some keep trying to make it a religious Salvation issue.

God outlined a way of eating that was very suboptimal at Sinai--as with other matters, the diet outlined there was a concession.

If you're not saying it's a salvation issue, then you agree that believers "may" eat pork.

 

[Davy]

God outlined a way of eating that was very suboptimal at Sinai--as with other matters, the diet outlined there was a concession.

If you're not saying it's a salvation issue, then you agree that believers "may" eat pork.

I never said that per the New Covenant we cannot eat off God's healthy list. Those who think I said that need to be more careful about their reading comprehension.

At the same time, that does not... mean eating pork is healthy, period. A hog is a scavenger which God designed to cleanse the earth, like a vulture, or crab, lobster, shrimp, catfish.

Apostle Paul said whatever is sold in the shambles (market), that eat. The idea is to eat to live, not to make a religious doctrine out of it.

Paul also showed that if invited to the house of an unbeliever of the Gentiles, to eat what is set before you, unless... you know it has been offered to idols, then do not eat it. The idea is not to insult those you are trying to take The Gospel to. That still does not mean unhealthy food is made healthy.

 

[GracePeace]

I never said that per the New Covenant we cannot eat off God's healthy list. Those who think I said that need to be more careful about their reading comprehension.

At the same time, that does not... mean eating pork is healthy, period. A hog is a scavenger which God designed to cleanse the earth, like a vulture, or crab, lobster, shrimp, catfish.

Apostle Paul said whatever is sold in the shambles (market), that eat. The idea is to eat to live, not to make a religious doctrine out of it.

Paul also showed that if invited to the house of an unbeliever of the Gentiles, to eat what is set before you, unless... you know it has been offered to idols, then do not eat it. The idea is not to insult those you are trying to take The Gospel to. That still does not mean unhealthy food is made healthy.

1. So, again, with respect to the thread (about whether eating pork, etc, is sinful or permissible--not a discussion about health) you are in agreement that eating pork is permissible. I had lumped you in with the other users who believe it to be sinful. Glad that is cleared up.

2. To be clear, Paul says he will eat food sacrificed to idols, because "the idol is nothing", and "the earth and all that is in it belongs to the Lord", but he will abstain from eating the meat sacrificed to an idol if it hinders the Gospel from reaching the lost or offends/makes a believing brother stumble.

 

[GracePeace]

I never said that per the New Covenant we cannot eat off God's healthy list. Those who think I said that need to be more careful about their reading comprehension.

At the same time, that does not... mean eating pork is healthy, period. A hog is a scavenger which God designed to cleanse the earth, like a vulture, or crab, lobster, shrimp, catfish.

Apostle Paul said whatever is sold in the shambles (market), that eat. The idea is to eat to live, not to make a religious doctrine out of it.

Paul also showed that if invited to the house of an unbeliever of the Gentiles, to eat what is set before you, unless... you know it has been offered to idols, then do not eat it. The idea is not to insult those you are trying to take The Gospel to. That still does not mean unhealthy food is made healthy.

Eating is to be done for the glory of God, not health. Clearly this is the case when you see that God DID NOT demand the Jews eat Genesis 1 diet, thus incurred many diseases on His people, and cut their lives very very short. Men used to live many hundreds of years before they ate meat. As soon as they started eating meat, their lifespans began being cut short. We know scientifically how this works now--flooding the body with amino acids shuts SIRT2 anti-aging pathway down (it corrects errors that accumulate on the DNA--without that pathway being active, the body "forgets" how to make proteins correctly).

It may be argued someone who is reaching lost tribes with the Gospel, who eats what ever is set before him, to the detriment of his health, is glorifying God more than someone who is spending his life eating a raw vegan diet (and in my experience it take a great commitment of time to do it) but is not oriented toward reaching the lost. Not that those are the only two options.

 

[Davy]

1. So, again, with respect to the thread (about whether eating pork, etc, is sinful or permissible--not a discussion about health) you are in agreement that eating pork is permissible. I had lumped you in with the other users who believe it to be sinful. Glad that is cleared up.

2. To be clear, Paul says he will eat food sacrificed to idols, because "the idol is nothing", and "the earth and all that is in it belongs to the Lord", but he will abstain from eating the meat sacrificed to an idol if it hinders the Gospel from reaching the lost or offends/makes a believing brother stumble.

I never said it was a sin unto God. Now one actually could... say it is a sin to one's flesh body, because it is an unhealthy practice, just like smoking, gluttony, alcoholism, etc.

For No.2, you need to keep reading what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 10...

1 Cor 10:19-28
19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than He?
23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.
25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
28 But if any man say unto you, "This is offered in sacrifice unto idols", eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
KJV

 

[GracePeace]

I never said it was a sin unto God. Now one actually could... say it is a sin to one's flesh body, because it is an unhealthy practice, just like smoking, gluttony, alcoholism, etc.

For No.2, you need to keep reading what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 10...

1 Cor 10:19-28
19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than He?
23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.
25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
28 But if any man say unto you, "This is offered in sacrifice unto idols", eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
KJV

1. There is no sin that can exist without it being a sin against God--eg, in this case, you argue "it's a sin against one's own body", but that's the same argument Paul uses about immorality (it's a sin against one's own body).

2. YEAH, don't partake of food sacrificed to idols:
a) IF, TO YOU, YOU BELIEVE you're sharing in the table of devils, or
b) if someone else's conscience is going to be helped by you not partaking,

... but, since, in reality, the earth and all that is in it is the Lord's, your own conscience doesn't need to be bothered (which he affirms, again, when he says not to inquire as to whether the meat was sacrificed to idols--IF YOU DON'T KNOW, IT DOESN'T Matter, IT HAS NO INHERENT SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE APPLIED TO IT BY IT BEING SACRIFICED TO AN IDOL).

 

[Phoneman777]

Well all Greek texts do not support this Peshitta translation. Nothing about keeping the Sabbath. However Jewish believers are still under the command to keep Sabbath for it is an eternal covenant God made with Israel.

The TEXTUS RECEPTUS does! The Peshitta is the closest to the TR there is, and although there's a few variant readings, it's an astoundingly accurate MSS.

The word "rest" in the first 8 verses of Hebrews 4 is "kataposis" which simply means "to cease" - HOWEVER, THE WORD "REST" IN VERSE NINE IS NOT "KATAPOSIS" - IT'S "SABBATISMOS" WHICH A BLIND MAN CAN SEE REFERS TO THE WEEKLY SABBATH!

That's why Lamsa translates it "keep the Sabbath" and is why the KJV SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRANSLATED ACCORDINGLY, BUT THE BEAST POWER IN ROME HAD SO LONG AGO CHANGED THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT TO SUNDAY THAT BY THE TIME THE 16TH CENTURY REFORMATION GOT GOING, NO ONE HAD ANY IDEA THAT SUNDAY WAS WRONG AND THE SEVENTH DAY IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE THE CORRECT SABBATH.

Paul said all foods are to be received with thanks

This same Paul in the passage said the food must be sanctified by the Word of God - but you courtyard Christians don't care about that.

If you did, you'd say, "Well, where does God "sanctify" or "set apart" food for us to eat - and that would lead you to Leviticus 11 and then you'd see God left pigs off the menu.

That's why Isaiah said Jesus is going to burn up pork eaters at His fiery Second Coming.

and Jesus said that nothing a person eats can defile them.

Does your interpretation agree with the context? Absolutely not. The context of Jesus' words has to do with "spiritual defilement" - not dietary defilement.

Can you see how my SDA interpretation harmonizes the words of Jesus and Paul and Isaiah - while your interpretation requires us to wrongly interpreting Jesus' words and completely ignore Isaiah's words.

 

[GracePeace]

Jesus said that nothing a person eats can defile them

I agree with your overall point, but, just to clarify on this one thing, in Mt 15, Jesus was addressing the Pharisees' attempts to be little "enforcers", worthlessly accusing Jesus of being a transgressor of their little manmade "authoritative" tradition (as if it were a command of God) of washing hands before eating ("but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man"); it had nothing to do with changing the dietary law for Himself or Jews at the time--accordingly, as scholars have noted, Peter never ate anything but kosher food up until he ate with Cornelius (granted, he didn't understand Gentiles could be saved until then, so it's not like there couldn't be things Jesus was teaching that he just didn't "get", but the incident in Mt 15 clearly isn't about kosher diet but about demolishing the "vain worship" of pre-meal hand washing of the Pharisees).

 

[Davy]

1. There is no sin that can exist without it being a sin against God--eg, in this case, you argue "it's a sin against one's own body", but that's the same argument Paul uses about immorality (it's a sin against one's own body).

You can lie to yourself all you want, God won't stop you.

2. YEAH, don't partake of food sacrificed to idols:
a) IF, TO YOU, YOU BELIEVE you're sharing in the table of devils, or
b) if someone else's conscience is going to be helped by you not partaking,

... but, since, in reality, the earth and all that is in it is the Lord's, your own conscience doesn't need to be bothered (which he affirms, again, when he says not to inquire as to whether the meat was sacrificed to idols--IF YOU DON'T KNOW, IT DOESN'T Matter, IT HAS NO INHERENT SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE APPLIED TO IT BY IT BEING SACRIFICED TO AN IDOL).

I showed you what Apostle Paul said, don't eat what you know is sacrificed to idols, that for the unbeliever's sake.

Your choice to believe what Paul said, nor not.

 

[GracePeace]

You can lie to yourself all you want, God won't stop you.

Not sure how I am supposedly lying to myself.

I showed you what Apostle Paul said, don't eat what you know is sacrificed to idols, that for the unbeliever's sake.

Your choice to believe what Paul said, nor not.

Not sure what I was supposed to have said that did not agree.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

This same Paul in the passage said the food must be sanctified by the Word of God - but you courtyard Christians don't care about that.

If you did, you'd say, "Well, where does God "sanctify" or "set apart" food for us to eat - and that would lead you to Leviticus 11 and then you'd see God left pigs off the menu.

commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

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

5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Well phenomenon you seem to have altered the word of God. for the word says it is sanctified by the word, not must be sanctified! your definition is yours and not teh bible.

But verse 4-- Every: pas = all! YOu are simply wrong.

Does your interpretation agree with the context? Absolutely not. The context of Jesus' words has to do with "spiritual defilement" - not dietary defilement.

Can you see how my SDA interpretation harmonizes the words of Jesus and Paul and Isaiah - while your interpretation requires us to wrongly interpreting Jesus' words and completely ignore Isaiah's words.

You still don't get it and now you think dietary defilement is a more serious infraction that spiritual defilement! WOW.

But no you are simply reading in to the text things not there.

11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Jesus clearly says that NOTHING I repeat NOTHING that goes into a persons mouth defiles a man. Biut that which comes out of the mouoth that defiles a person!!!!

Mark 7:18-20

King James Version

​

18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

whatever from without that goes into a man it CANNOT CANNOT defile the person!

YOu are reinterpreting teh word to defend a personal agenda.

That's why Lamsa translates it "keep the Sabbath" and is why the KJV SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRANSLATED ACCORDINGLY, BUT THE BEAST POWER IN ROME HAD SO LONG AGO CHANGED THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT TO SUNDAY THAT BY THE TIME THE 16TH CENTURY REFORMATION GOT GOING, NO ONE HAD ANY IDEA THAT SUNDAY WAS WRONG AND THE SEVENTH DAY IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE THE CORRECT SABBATH.

Well both the Lamsa and Peshitta translate this passage wrong. The verb associated with Sabbatismos isapoleipo which means : left, leave or remains.

Now let us look at the context of this verse:

Hebrews 4

King James Version

​

4 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

Now the focus of this is a ceasing from ones labor, and specifically seeking to obtain righteousness from ones labors.

Yes it is true that all other "rests" is "katapausis" but in the Septuagint

STRONGS G2663:
κατάπαυσις, καταπαύσεώς, ἡ (καταπαύω, which see);
1. actively, a putting to rest: τῶν πνευμάτων, a calming of the winds Theophrastus, de ventis 18; τυράννων, removal from office Herodotus 5, 38.
2. In the Greek Scriptures (the Sept. several times for מְנוּחָה) intransitive, a resting, rest: ἡμέρα τῆς καταπαύσεώς, the day of rest, the sabbath, 2 Macc. 15:1; τόπος τῆς καταπαύσεώς μου, where I may rest, Acts 7:49. Metaphorically, ἡ κατάπαυσις τοῦ Θεοῦ, the heavenly blessedness in which God dwells, and of which he has promised to make persevering believers in Christ partakers after the toils and trials of life on earth are ended: Hebrews 3:11, 18; Hebrews 4:1, 3, 5, 10f (after Psalm 94:11 (Ps. 95:11), where the expression denotes the fixed and tranquil abode promised to the Israelites in the land of Palestine).

And now finally let us remember the most important question. Who is this letter written to? Hebrews! Jews! If one reads the OT the Sabbath day is an eternal covenant for Jews to keep in all their generations! Jews not gentiles! In the church jewish believers should observe Sabbath rest. It is not a day to go to church but to cease form labors.

 

[GracePeace]

3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day

Lol it's literally right there

 

[Phoneman777]

commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

We SDAs don't forbid meat - only unclean meat, as does Scripture.
The PAPACY is guilty of forbidding CLEAN meat during papal festivals.

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

Maggots are creatures, too. If you refuse a maggot sandwich, you're in trouble, right?

5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Well phenomenon you seem to have altered the word of God. for the word says it is sanctified by the word, not must be sanctified! your definition is yours and not teh bible.

But verse 4-- Every: pas = all! YOu are simply wrong.

Yes, the Word of God sanctifies only clean meat in Leviticus were you won't find pork on the menu - and we're to ask a blessing over it.

You still don't get it and now you think dietary defilement is a more serious infraction that spiritual defilement! WOW.

Isaiah says Jesus considers it a serious infraction worthy of fiery punishment.

But no you are simply reading in to the text things not there.

No, you're ignoring what's plainly in front of you.

11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Jesus clearly says that NOTHING I repeat NOTHING that goes into a persons mouth defiles a man. Biut that which comes out of the mouoth that defiles a person!!!!

Mark 7:18-20​

​

King James Version​

​

​

18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

whatever from without that goes into a man it CANNOT CANNOT defile the person!

YOu are reinterpreting teh word to defend a personal agenda.

Context context, context. The Jews claimed those who didn't handwash between meal courses became "spiritually dirty" by food eaten with "dirty" hands.

Jesus clarified it ain't dirty hands that makes you spiritually unclean, but a dirty heart.

Amazing how Peter never got the memo from Jesus giving the green light for bacon and sausage, though he walked with Him for 3 1/2 years!

Well both the Lamsa and Peshitta translate this passage wrong. The verb associated with Sabbatismos isapoleipo which means : left, leave or remains.

You're making my point! There remains our duty to keep the weekly Sabbath!

Now let us look at the context of this verse:

How about we just read the plain words of the text, which are contextually: those who are resting inwardly in Jesus will demonstrate that by resting outwardly from our work once a week

And now finally let us remember the most important question. Who is this letter written to? Hebrews! Jews! If one reads the OT the Sabbath day is an eternal covenant for Jews to keep in all their generations! Jews not gentiles! In the church jewish believers should observe Sabbath rest. It is not a day to go to church but to cease form labors.

And, there it is! "We're Gentiles, not Jews!"

Look, the NC is written ONLY to the "house of Israel and the house of Judah" - understand? Anyone who plans to be part of the NC must become a "spiritual Israelite" and take up his duty to "keep the Sabbath" just like the Peshitta says we're to do.

 

[avemaria81]

Yessir, Jesus is the final redactor of the Law

 

[Brakelite]

Maggots are creatures, too. If you refuse a maggot sandwich, you're in trouble, right

But they can bless the food and all will be well.