We are what we eat

[Deborah_]

Judaism is famous for its dietary laws. The basis of these is a list of the animals that the Israelites could and could not eat (Leviticus 11) - although there are many other rules as well.

Much ingenuity and speculation has gone into working out the possible reasons why certain animals were ‘off the menu’. Why are lamb and beef OK, but not pork or rabbit? And although most of us would turn our noses up at ‘creepy-crawlies’ of any kind, why make an exception for locusts? Most commentaries lay stress on the possible health benefits of avoiding certain kinds of meat, but I think these are somewhat overstated. It’s true that pork and shellfish are well-known sources of parasites, but some of the ‘clean’ animals are almost as bad (you can get tapeworm from beef and salmonella from chickens). So that can’t be the explanation.

In all probability, the distinctions between the ‘clean’ and the ‘unclean’ are purely arbitrary. God had called a nation out from the rest of the world to be his special people - and they needed help to maintain their distinctive identity. Dietary differences make for clear cultural boundaries; these food laws have helped the Jewish people to maintain their racial and cultural identity for over 3000 years. Under the new covenant, however, they have become irrelevant (Colossians 2:16,17). Christians have other ways of being distinctive from the surrounding culture.

So what we put into our mouths no longer has any spiritual implications (Mark 7:18,19) - or does it? Unless we are at or near starvation level, what we eat and drink has significance above and beyond mere nutrition. We care enormously about our food: what goes into it, how it was grown, how animals are slaughtered (or whether we should eat animals at all). How many of us use moral criteria when compiling our shopping lists? We look for the labels that identify ‘free range’, ‘organic’, or ‘fair trade’`… and we also have to bear in mind the many individuals with food allergies (real or imaginary) and the vegetarians. Suddenly the kosher restrictions don’t look so restrictive after all…

Whatever the reasons for our choices, we can easily become obsessive about them. We can forget that other people are free to make different choices (Romans 14:5,6) - and that those with coeliac disease or serious food allergies don’t have a choice.

But the bottom line is this: “whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (I Corinthians 10:31).

 

[whitestone]

I eat everything set before me


(Luk 10:8) And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:



(Mat 15:17) Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
(Mat 15:18) But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
(Mat 15:19) For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
(Mat 15:20) These are the things which defile a man...



(Mar 7:18) 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;

(Mar 7:19) Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?



(1Co 6:12) All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
(1Co 6:13) Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them...


(Col 2:20) Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

(Col 2:21) (Touch not; taste not; handle not;


(Col 2:22) Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?

 

[Deborah_]

Aren't we fortunate that we can!

It means that food should never be made into an issue.
"For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." (Romans 14:17)

 

[shnarkle]

In all probability, the distinctions between the ‘clean’ and the ‘unclean’ are purely arbitrary.

]

To assume the dietary laws are arbitrary is to make God capricious.

God had called a nation out from the rest of the world to be his special people - and they needed help to maintain their distinctive identity. Dietary differences make for clear cultural boundaries; these food laws have helped the Jewish people to maintain their racial and cultural identity for over 3000 years. Under the new covenant, however, they have become irrelevant (Colossians 2:16,17). Christians have other ways of being distinctive from the surrounding culture.

The dietary laws are not meant to maintain their distinctive identity as that would only separate them from people who consume pork, shellfish, catfish, etc. It doesn't separate them from people who eat beef or poultry, or all the clean fish. Moreover, the Mosaic law, as well as the Talmud both expressly allow and condone communal eating of meals. The Talmud even allows for eating out of the same bowl.

So what we put into our mouths no longer has any spiritual implications (Mark 7:18,19)

That verse, the parenthetical statement of verse 19 was added by a scribe. It was originally a marginal note, and migrated into the texts of translations. It is only found in ONE manuscript; the Codex Bezai.

Unless we are at or near starvation level, what we eat and drink has significance above and beyond mere nutrition. But the bottom line is this: “whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (I Corinthians 10:31).

Assuming that swine, shellfish, etc is food is where this falls apart as this simply isn't the case if we look at how the bible defines food. Swine, shellfish, etc. are no more considered food than rocks, hair, wood, feces etc. In every case, it is assumed that whatever is placed before you is food, but if it isn't considered food to begin with then one needn't be concerned with avoiding it altogether.

For anyone who has kept the dietary laws for any extended period of their adult lives, the reasons become abundantly clear as soon as a violation occurs. The result, even with todays superior farms, is an almost immediate need to vomit. Swine have no mechanism for expelling toxins from their bodies. They are literally God's vacuum cleaners. They contain incredible levels of toxins as well as viruses and bacteria that would tear a person's gut to pieces. This is why they're used in developing vaccines. The virus can be introduced into swine to develop antibodies as the swine is about the only thing that can shrug it off like a common cold.

There is absolutely no chance that an observant Jew would ever consider eating swine 2000 years ago due to the fact that it would have made them violently ill, probably before it could even begin to be digested.

God tells his chosen people not to eat it because it isn't food. It's garbage. The Hebrew word "tame" means "filth, pollution", and that is exactly what it is. Some choose to disbelieve what their own bible explicitly states because they simply don't see any problem with eating bacon, pork sausage, pepperoni, etc. This is no different than the homosexual's rational for engaging in their behaviors. They're both explicitly condemned as "an abomination". God places them on the same level as detestable behaviors.

Why? Because in both cases, they are a transgression of the boundaries God has set for us to live within.

 

[marks]

Judaism is famous for its dietary laws. The basis of these is a list of the animals that the Israelites could and could not eat (Leviticus 11) - although there are many other rules as well.

Much ingenuity and speculation has gone into working out the possible reasons why certain animals were ‘off the menu’. Why are lamb and beef OK, but not pork or rabbit? And although most of us would turn our noses up at ‘creepy-crawlies’ of any kind, why make an exception for locusts? Most commentaries lay stress on the possible health benefits of avoiding certain kinds of meat, but I think these are somewhat overstated. It’s true that pork and shellfish are well-known sources of parasites, but some of the ‘clean’ animals are almost as bad (you can get tapeworm from beef and salmonella from chickens). So that can’t be the explanation.

In all probability, the distinctions between the ‘clean’ and the ‘unclean’ are purely arbitrary. God had called a nation out from the rest of the world to be his special people - and they needed help to maintain their distinctive identity. Dietary differences make for clear cultural boundaries; these food laws have helped the Jewish people to maintain their racial and cultural identity for over 3000 years. Under the new covenant, however, they have become irrelevant (Colossians 2:16,17). Christians have other ways of being distinctive from the surrounding culture.

So what we put into our mouths no longer has any spiritual implications (Mark 7:18,19) - or does it? Unless we are at or near starvation level, what we eat and drink has significance above and beyond mere nutrition. We care enormously about our food: what goes into it, how it was grown, how animals are slaughtered (or whether we should eat animals at all). How many of us use moral criteria when compiling our shopping lists? We look for the labels that identify ‘free range’, ‘organic’, or ‘fair trade’`… and we also have to bear in mind the many individuals with food allergies (real or imaginary) and the vegetarians. Suddenly the kosher restrictions don’t look so restrictive after all…

Whatever the reasons for our choices, we can easily become obsessive about them. We can forget that other people are free to make different choices (Romans 14:5,6) - and that those with coeliac disease or serious food allergies don’t have a choice.

But the bottom line is this: “whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (I Corinthians 10:31).

Good post!

God has used food sensitivities and as well as tastes to steer me out of an unhealthy diet into a much more healthy diet. I laugh when I look at what I eat these days, and what I would have thought of it in years past.

But it's what God did with me, and I know that He can do something completely different with someone else.

But even sourcing food is something we do with love, which forms the foundation for everything we do, I think. So we want to see animals cared for, and workers cared for, and to provide healthy and nourishing food for the enjoyment of those we serve.

Much love!

 

[Nancy]

The Levitical Laws, I thought were to keep the Israelite's a separate people of God. I do believe that the mixed clothing material was also one of the MANY laws to keep them separate. JMHO.

 

[Nancy]

Aren't we fortunate that we can!

It means that food should never be made into an issue.
"For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." (Romans 14:17)

Looks like this old thread has been revived!!! Lol. It is quite interesting in your OP, concerning how bad pork and shellfish - (bottom feeders, really...ew!)- can be to our bodies. I have gotten deathly sick on clams once. I have eaten them steamed since but, it took a while. Now, I do not even have a taste for them! And pork is something I very rarely have in my fridge/freezer. Not that a nice pork chop once in a long while, lol isn't nice...with a little mashed spuds... ...as long as I cook it

 

[Enoch111]

We are what we eat

Not really. All foods eventually break down into their components after digestion, and before they enter the bloodstream. So what we have is proteins (to amino acids), fats (to fatty acids and glycerol), carbohydrates (to simple sugars), fiber (excreted), vitamins and minerals, combined with a lot of water.

Also the dietary laws of the Old Covenant have been rendered null and void. All meats may be eaten with thanksgiving, since it is not what goes into a man that pollutes him, but what comes out of a man. See Mark 7.

 

[Deborah_]

That verse, the parenthetical statement of verse 19 was added by a scribe. It was originally a marginal note, and migrated into the texts of translations. It is only found in ONE manuscript; the Codex Bezai.

This is not true - the verses added in the Codex Bezai are the end of Mark 16. Where did you get this info from?

Some choose to disbelieve what their own bible explicitly states because they simply don't see any problem with eating bacon, pork sausage, pepperoni, etc. This is no different than the homosexual's rational for engaging in their behaviors. They're both explicitly condemned as "an abomination". God places them on the same level as detestable behaviors.

If Jesus "declared all foods clean", that's a good enough reason to consider them edible. The dietary laws of the OT do not apply to Gentile Christians.

Assuming that swine, shellfish, etc is food is where this falls apart as this simply isn't the case if we look at how the bible defines food. Swine, shellfish, etc. are no more considered food than rocks, hair, wood, feces etc. In every case, it is assumed that whatever is placed before you is food, but if it isn't considered food to begin with then one needn't be concerned with avoiding it altogether.

That's an interesting interpretation, but I've never heard of it before and it seems more than a little contrived - like the people who claim that "wine" in the Bible often just means "grape juice". Nowhere I know does the Bible make such a definition of "food" - Leviticus just says "don't eat certain kinds of meat".

For anyone who has kept the dietary laws for any extended period of their adult lives, the reasons become abundantly clear as soon as a violation occurs. The result, even with todays superior farms, is an almost immediate need to vomit.

Again, where do you get this info from? Muslims don't seem to have the same problem when they convert to Christianity - and celebrate by eating pork!

 

[Deborah_]

Not really. All foods eventually break down into their components after digestion, and before they enter the bloodstream. So what we have is proteins (to amino acids), fats (to fatty acids and glycerol), carbohydrates (to simple sugars), fiber (excreted), vitamins and minerals, combined with a lot of water.

Also the dietary laws of the Old Covenant have been rendered null and void. All meats may be eaten with thanksgiving, since it is not what goes into a man that pollutes him, but what comes out of a man. See Mark 7.

Are you taking issue with a catchy title?

 

[quietthinker]

Judaism is famous for its dietary laws. The basis of these is a list of the animals that the Israelites could and could not eat (Leviticus 11) - although there are many other rules as well.

Much ingenuity and speculation has gone into working out the possible reasons why certain animals were ‘off the menu’. Why are lamb and beef OK, but not pork or rabbit? And although most of us would turn our noses up at ‘creepy-crawlies’ of any kind, why make an exception for locusts? Most commentaries lay stress on the possible health benefits of avoiding certain kinds of meat, but I think these are somewhat overstated. It’s true that pork and shellfish are well-known sources of parasites, but some of the ‘clean’ animals are almost as bad (you can get tapeworm from beef and salmonella from chickens). So that can’t be the explanation.

In all probability, the distinctions between the ‘clean’ and the ‘unclean’ are purely arbitrary. God had called a nation out from the rest of the world to be his special people - and they needed help to maintain their distinctive identity. Dietary differences make for clear cultural boundaries; these food laws have helped the Jewish people to maintain their racial and cultural identity for over 3000 years. Under the new covenant, however, they have become irrelevant (Colossians 2:16,17). Christians have other ways of being distinctive from the surrounding culture.

So what we put into our mouths no longer has any spiritual implications (Mark 7:18,19) - or does it? Unless we are at or near starvation level, what we eat and drink has significance above and beyond mere nutrition. We care enormously about our food: what goes into it, how it was grown, how animals are slaughtered (or whether we should eat animals at all). How many of us use moral criteria when compiling our shopping lists? We look for the labels that identify ‘free range’, ‘organic’, or ‘fair trade’`… and we also have to bear in mind the many individuals with food allergies (real or imaginary) and the vegetarians. Suddenly the kosher restrictions don’t look so restrictive after all…

Whatever the reasons for our choices, we can easily become obsessive about them. We can forget that other people are free to make different choices (Romans 14:5,6) - and that those with coeliac disease or serious food allergies don’t have a choice.

But the bottom line is this: “whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (I Corinthians 10:31).

God does not give arbitrary Laws. Because man can't rationalise Laws he gives us, man dismisses them or calls them quaint or uniformed or arbitrary....this is the best man can come up with, all the while his foolishness is on display.

The spirituality in health laws is this: in order to serve the living God to the best of our ability we are required to keep our system healthy and clear and sharp.

Apart from being mindful of our physical health we also need to be mindful of our emotional health so that we are not dumbed down or numb to God's communication with us. A fogged mind will never hear/understand the finer mysteries God desires to reveal.

The only God that makes arbitrary laws is the God we create ourselves ie, one we make in our image....a God we can control or lay to one side when it suits us.

 

[shnarkle]

This is not true - the verses added in the Codex Bezai are the end of Mark 16. Where did you get this info from?

You can go google it, if you don't believe me. I think it's in "Google Scholar". The jpeg images don't even show the parenthetical remark because it's in the margins. It only shows up as a parenthetical remark in the translations. It is Mark 7:19 I'm well aware of the added verses of Mark 16 as well, but that's not the point of this discussion. So while what you say is true, it doesn't negate the fact that Mark 7:19 is also added.

If Jesus "declared all foods clean", that's a good enough reason to consider them edible.

Fallacy of Begging the Question. I have already pointed out the fact that the bible does not recognize swine, shellfish, etc. as food to begin with. You are simply assuming that it is food just because someone eats it. This is no different than what homosexuals do. They assume that they are having sex when they are doing no such thing. They are engaging in sodomy. They use the exact same arguments you do. See the double standard yet?

The dietary laws of the OT do not apply to Gentile Christians.

They most certainly do. God is not a respecter of persons. Romans 2:11. God insists that there is "One law for the native born and the foreign born alike" Exodus 12:49

The gentiles joined the church which was already in a covenant relationship with God. The fact that they broke it doesn't negate God's promises or the conditions of that covenant.

"This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles TO GIVE TO US:39 To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt, " Acts 7:37-39

Note that even though they were cast off because of their disobedience, those exact same oracles were given to "us". That's the church, and the church is obedient. Note that Paul points out the same exact conditions apply to you as to them.

"Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. " Romans 11:18-23


{QUOTE]That's an interesting interpretation, but I've never heard of it before and it seems more than a little contrived[/QUOTE]

See above, and note also what Luke says here:

"19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:"

Trouble them? The elders in the church have noticed that these converts are doing some things that need to be addressed, but by the same token there is no reason to point out that they should stop doing something they're not doing in the first place. One doesn't need to point out that one should stop engaging in bestiality if they're not doing that in the first place? Right? Doesn't that make sense? This is the case in all of scripture. So what are these new converts actually doing that is a problem? Let's see what Luke has to say:

"20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."

This is what seem to be the biggest problems that need to be addressed. Note that "things strangled, and from blood" are explicit and direct references to the Old Testament law, and can only be found in the dietary laws. So what is the solution? Why are only these few transgressions mentioned rather than regurgitating the entire Mosaic law? Here's the church's explanation:

"21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day"

Did you catch that? Most don't. They have access to the Mosaic law being preached to them each and every Sabbath day. They're going into the synagogues on the Sabbath. In fact, Luke even points out that in some cases, the entire Gentile community would come out to hear Paul preach in the synagogues on the Sabbath. (see Acts. 13:44)

- like the people who claim that "wine" in the Bible often just means "grape juice".

Strawman argument.

Nowhere I know does the Bible make such a definition of "food" - Leviticus just says "don't eat certain kinds of meat".

You certainly don't know that. Prove it. Your use of quotations is what is known as a forgery. Nowhere does the bible refer to these animals as "meat" or "food". The burden of proof is upon you to provide these mysterious passages that exist in no other bible but your own. Again, we'd all love to see where any bible refers to these animals as "meat" or "food".

Again, where do you get this info from?

I'm getting it straight from the bible. Did you notice my use of quotations as well as references from scripture?

Muslims don't seem to have the same problem when they convert to Christianity - and celebrate by eating pork!

So you're justifying your position by presenting the fact that Muslims celebrate by eating pork? Homosexuals celebrate their admission into Christian churches by engaginG in sodomy. Does that sound like a good justification for committing an abomination? You do know that eating swine, shellfish, etc. is considered an abomination by God, don't you?

 

[shnarkle]

God does not give arbitrary Laws. Because man can't rationalise Laws he gives us, man dismisses them or calls them quaint or uniformed or arbitrary....this is the best man can come up with, all the while his foolishness is on display.

The spirituality in health laws is this: in order to serve the living God to the best of our ability we are required to keep our system healthy and clear and sharp.

Apart from being mindful of our physical health we also need to be mindful of our emotional health so that we are not dumbed down or numb to God's communication with us. A fogged mind will never hear/understand the finer mysteries God desires to reveal.

The only God that makes arbitrary laws is the God we create ourselves ie, one we make in our image....a God we can control or lay to one side when it suits us.

While this is all certainly logical, I would only point out that it is God who draws us to Christ and to conformity to Christ in obedience. Therefore the law is not a means to salvation or to serve God better, but rather God who saves, sanctifies and makes us holy, and a holy and justified people keep God's laws as a consequence.

 

[shnarkle]

Aren't we fortunate that we can!

It means that food should never be made into an issue.
"For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." (Romans 14:17)

And yet it is precisely those who excuse themselves for transgressing God's law who make this an issue in the first place. We could just as easily say, "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of fornicating and sodomy, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit". See how the sodomite and fornicator are now just as easily welcomed into the fold?

 

[Deborah_]

You can go google it, if you don't believe me. I think it's in "Google Scholar". The jpeg images don't even show the parenthetical remark because it's in the margins. It only shows up as a parenthetical remark in the translations. It is Mark 7:19 I'm well aware of the added verses of Mark 16 as well, but that's not the point of this discussion. So while what you say is true, it doesn't negate the fact that Mark 7:19 is also added.

Well, I did google it - and I found articles referring to variant readings of Mark 7:19 in many different manuscripts! If it's in lots of manuscripts, it can't simultaneously be only in one.

You are simply assuming that it is food just because someone eats it.

That is the normal definition of food. There's no separate "Bible definition" - that's your personal interpretation.

I'm getting it straight from the bible. Did you notice my use of quotations as well as references from scripture?

Where in the Bible does it say that people vomit after eating pork?

So you're justifying your position by presenting the fact that Muslims celebrate by eating pork? Homosexuals celebrate their admission into Christian churches by engaginG in sodomy.

I merely pointed out that ex-Muslims who start eating pork products don't get sick as a result. So why should anyone else? That's not by any stretch of the imagination a justification of my position; it's just evidence against your argument. Find a better one.
I don't know what homosexuals have to do with it - Christ never abrogated the rules for sexual behaviour, and do you not know that homosexuals who become Christians stop having homosexual sex?

 

[shnarkle]

Well, I did google it - and I found articles referring to variant readings of Mark 7:19 in many different manuscripts! If it's in lots of manuscripts, it can't simultaneously be only in one.

You're mistaken. It happens a lot. People think they're looking at a variant reading when they're not. It's a common mistake. Provide the examples, and I'll prove it to you.

That is the normal definition of food. There's no separate "Bible definition" - that's your personal interpretation.

Nope. Simply provide any biblical reference you please so we can put this to rest. So far all you've done is provide your own ideas of what food is. Go ahead, and post these mysterious passages that you believe exist in the bible. We're all still waiting.

Where in the Bible does it say that people vomit after eating pork?

Strawman argument. I never made that claim. I have simply pointed out a fact which is that people who don't eat garbage do not have the constitution to eat it. That's just a simple observable fact.

I merely pointed out that ex-Muslims who start eating pork products don't get sick as a result.

No, you used the fact that they eat pork as a justification to eat pork.

So why should anyone else? That's not by any stretch of the imagination a justification of my position; it's just evidence against your argument. Find a better one.

You aren't presenting a valid justification, and I pointed out why. I refuted the fact that just because someone can do something doesn't make it right. Just because homosexuals are admitted into the church community doesn't make it right to engage in sodomy. See the problem yet? No, you probably don't because you're getting this all from some imaginary bible rather than an actual bible.

I don't know what homosexuals have to do with it

You don't know how to follow a simple argument either.

- Christ never abrogated the rules for sexual behaviour, and do you not know that homosexuals who become Christians stop having homosexual sex?

Strawman argument. I'm not presenting the case of homosexuals who don't engage in sodomy. I'm presenting the overwhelming cases of homosexuals who continue to openly engage in homosexual sodomy, and openly admit it. I would include heterosexuals who engage in it as well.

You're just wasting time with pointless deflections. Simply provide these passages you believe exist in the bible which state that swine, shellfish, etc. are "food" or "meat". I'd say "good luck", but it won't help you to find it.

 

[Deborah_]

I can't take this seriously. You are twisting my words and forgetting your own:

For anyone who has kept the dietary laws for any extended period of their adult lives, the reasons become abundantly clear as soon as a violation occurs. The result, even with todays superior farms, is an almost immediate need to vomit.

Again, where do you get this info from?

I'm getting it straight from the bible. Did you notice my use of quotations as well as references from scripture?

Where in the Bible does it say that people vomit after eating pork?

Strawman argument. I never made that claim. I have simply pointed out a fact which is that people who don't eat garbage do not have the constitution to eat it. That's just a simple observable fact.

Here is the article I referred to. The guy is an expert in Greek texts, so somehow I don't think he'll be imagining what he reads there.
http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/TC-Mark.pdf

 

[Enoch111]

God does not give arbitrary Laws.

True. But God gave Israel a set of laws, and they do not apply to the Church. Christ Himself (who is God) made that very clear.

At the same time Christian liberty allows the weaker Christians to hold on to the dietary laws of the OT, PROVIDED they do not insist that all Christians are required to hold on to them. Indeed Paul -- speaking by the Holy Spirit -- tells Christians that ALL MEATS from ALL CREATURES may be consumed with thanksgiving, and that is perfectly acceptable to God. Jesus further insisted that it is not what we consume as food which pollutes us, but what comes out of our hearts and mouths.

The handling and preparation of meats today is a a far cry from how it was in 1500 BC. And eventually all meats, vegetables, and fruits break down into amino acids, fatty acids and glycerol, and simple sugars within the digestive system.

 

[shnarkle]

Here is the article I referred to. The guy is an expert in Greek texts, so somehow I don't think he'll be imagining what he reads there.
http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/TC-Mark.pdf

I'm not reading through an entire pdf file. Simply point out the evidence he provides for the passage in question. copy and paste it so we can all look at it now rather than asking me to waste more time.

 

[Enoch111]

Here is the article I referred to. The guy is an expert in Greek texts...

The guys who are supposedly experts in the Greek texts are also the ones who promote a lot of nonsense about the Bible. Don't waste your time on their musings.