What about that ham sandwich ?

Acts 15 is a case of Jewish Christian leaders debating whether or not Gentiles had to "become Jews" to be saved. They are not debating the 10 commandments NOR are they debating the 4th commandment or the first or the 6th etc.

The issue of circumcision (as we see from Ephesians 2) was complete identity as a Jew not merely "keeping the 10 commandments".

However in Acts 16 we see Paul compelling Timothy to be circumcised. This is in keeping with Paul's own statements on his teaching to Jewish Christians in Acts 21 and 22.

In Acts 15 James argues that since Moses is being preached in synagogues every Sabbath there is no need to require the gentiles (that we see in places like Acts 13 worshipping in the Synagogues) to ALSO become Jews. They will be hearing scripture even WITHOUT becoming Jews. Because Moses is being preached in the synagogue every Sabbath.

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is ridiculous; how because we disagree with your insistence that that precept of the Law is still in effect, you have us reducing the entire work of Christ down to some licence to eat rats, as if people today had been dying to eat them all along. But as you said it: "but many will rather think of Christ dying on the cross as being the means of our salavtion, and forgiveness of sins, and paying the debt that we owe etc...". If the Law of unclean meats was away of pointing to this need (to be cleansed from "uncleanness; which is spiritual, once again!), then the death of Christ would fulfill its intent, and it would not be needed.
So, some animals we would still not eat, because it is not healthy. Rats still carry a very negative connotation, so most do not eat them. Cats and dogs I would say we shouldn't eat, because it is apparent that God gave them to be our friends. They are almost like us, and apart of many families. The only places these animals are eaten, is where there are severe food shortages (Haiti, China, etc). Then, it may become a "delicacy" (mostly to curious westerns), but the basic cause of eating them was dire need. (I still wish those people would just go vegetarian, then, if there is not enough meat).
So there are still many reasons you shouldn't eat many animals; but, you cannot say they have broken God's spiritual law, like if they had committed adultery.

 

Mark 7:18-20 shows that Jesus declared all foods (meats) clean. It is not what goes into you that defiles you, but what comes out of you heart (the things that show up in your words and actions). So, I can eat the ham sandwich if I want to.

 

Isaiah 66:15-17:
"For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.
They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD."

Being that I am a Seventh Day Adventist, I probably have a different view about the food issue than most everyone here, but here goes...

The Bible positively states that all who eat "swine's flesh", "the mouse" and other unclean things that are an "abomination" will be destroyed with fire at the coming of the Lord. When God says to leave something alone and not eat it, we should by all means obey Him. After all, when Adam and Eve ate a mere piece of forbidden fruit this is what brought sin and death into the world in the first place.

Can we say it doesnt matter when the Word of God plainly shows that it does? God says that men will be destroyed because they "chose that in which I delighted not" Isaiah 66:4.

Many believe that the law of clean and unclean animals originated at Sinai and that it was "for the Jews only" and ended at the cross. But the Bible gives ample evidence that there were designated both clean and unclean animals from the beginning of time. The animals were taken into the ark ..clean animals by "sevens" and unclean by "twos". Revelation 18:2 refers to some birds being unclean just before the second coming of Christ.

The death of Christ has no altering effect on health laws since the Bible says that ALL who break them will be destroyed when Jesus returns (Isaish 66:15-17).

The laws of nature are the laws of nature and they dont discriminate between Jews and Christians... neither do diseases that come from eating pork and other things. Leviticus 3:17 says to eat neither fat nor blood. Recent scientific studies confirm that most heart attacks come from a high cholesterol level in the blood and that the use of "fats" is largely responsible for this high level. It looks like God knows what He is talking about after all.

When God said "Thou shalt not kill" He also meant that we should not kill our own selves by degress, "suicide on the installment plan" is not a real option just because you're a Christian.

"Be not deceived, whatever a man sows he shall reap" Galatians 6:7. Trouble comes when we disregard and ignore God's health laws. If a parent uses drugs for instance, he or she will transmit weaknesses to their children Deuteronomy 12:25. God makes it plain that children and grandchildren (to the fourth generation) pay the price for the folly of parents who disregard God's rules. Ezekiel 11:21 says that God will recompense their way upon their own heads" if a man walks after detestable things and abominations.

1. I Timothy 4:4 says that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be refused"... is this a license to eat and drink whatever you want to?


This Scripture refers to meats that "God hath created to be received with thanksgiving"... but we already know that clean meats are listed in Leviticus chapter 11 and Deut. chapter 14. Verse 5 tells why these animals or foods are acceptable, they are "sanctified" by God's Word, but the Bible also says that God will destroy those who try to "sanctify themselves" while disobeying God and eating unclean foods (Isaiah 66:17).

Matthew 5:11 says "Not that which goes into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out". What does this mean?

The subject in this passage is about not first washing the hands before eating. The focus is not upon eating, but washing. The scribes taught that eating any food without a ceremonial washing defiled the eater. Jesus said ceremonial washings were meaningless. in verse 19 Jesus lists certain evils adulteries, murder, thefts (in other words breaking the ten commandments) are the things that REALLY defile a man (verse 20)

But then some believe that Jesus cleanses all animals in Peter's vision as recorded in Acts 10. No! The subject of this vision is people, not animals. God gave Peter this vision to tell him that Gentiles were not to be regarded as unclean, as the Jews believed. God had instructed Cornelius, a Gentile, to send men to visit Peter.

Peter would've refused to see them, had God not given him this vision because Jewish law forbade entertaining Gentiles (verse 28). Peter said God showed him that he was not to regard any MAN unclean.

So why did God make the hog, then... if not to eat? He made it for the same purpose that He made buzzards- as a scavenger to clean up garbage. It was never intended for food.

What about Romans 14:13,14 "Let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth". "There is nothing unclean of itself". The passage are a discussion of those who eat certain things and they who do not. It does not say that either is right or wrong, it merely says not to pass judgment on each other. Let God be the judge. Verses 14 and 20 refer to foods that were once offered to idols (and were thus ceremonially unclean) -not to the clean and unclean meats of Leviticus chapter 11. The point was that no food is to be regarded as "unclean" just because it has first been offered to idols because an idol "is nothing in the world" 1 Cor. 8:4. But if it offends your conscience or even a brother you should leave it alone.

God ALLOWED certain meats after the flood, but it did not mean that these foods were the ideal diet for man. Genesis1:29;2:16 tells us God gave man a vegetarian diet. "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat".

Seventh Day Adventists who eat a vegetarian diet live on the average of 7 to 20 years longer than the general population. It isnt because they are Seventh Day Adventists, it is because they eat what God originally intended them to eat. In heaven there will be no killing... Revelation 21:4 says there will be no more death. There wont be any killing of animals for food.

3 John:2: Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.

Isaiah 55:2 "Eat that which is good"

1 Corinthians 10:31
"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."

God wishes for His people to be physically healthy as well as spiritually healthy. If we can add years to our lives and live healthier lives by eating and drinking healthy foods then we ought to do it. That is so much more years given to us to preach the Gospel to others.

Life is a gift from God, seek to live it as healthily as you can. Seek to live for God's glory... dont seek to find the lowest leavel that you can "get away with" and still manage to be "saved".

Remember Daniel, He and his friends refused to eat the King's food... and they asked to be allowed to eat "pulse" which was a vegetarian diet. It turned out he and his friends were better off physically, mentally and spiritually. (see Daniel chapter 1)They were able to think more clearly, God gave them understanding in visions, and in prophecies.

God does allow certain foods and He also condemns the use of certain foods. We ought to seek for the highest level... to glorify God, because after all our bodies are "not our own" and were meant to be the temple of the Holy Spirit. 1Cor:6:20: "For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." 1Cor:6:19: What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Go back to the original diet for man and it will greatly decrease health problems. You will be doing what God originally intended.


----------

http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org

 

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/35/1728_84376

http://www.thefountainoflife.ws/cancer/nocancer.htm

http://www.llu.edu/info/legacy/LegacyC.html

http://news.adventist.org/data/2001/06/0995375716/index.html.en

I forgot to put the articles about Seventh Day Adventists living longer

 

I'm sory, I meant to say Seventh Day Adventists who eat right live 7 to 10 years longer, not 20 years. I mis-typed that... but the message board wouldnt allow me to edit my mistake because I waited too long, I guess.

 

I wish that this Board gave more time to edit your messages, I'd of put all this into one post. But I just wanted to add that it is not only important to exclude unhealthy food and drink but also to make sure to include that which is healthy. Some who are trying to start having a healthy diet will make the mistake of just getting rid of this and that "bad" thing in their diets... but they dont take care to make sure to eat plenty of whole grains, vegetables, fruits, legumes, beans, nuts and so on. You can be unhealthy if you neglect to eat the nutritional foods you need just as much as you can from eating unhealthy foods. You dont want to have a meager, unsubstantial diet.

The Bible isnt just a bunch of "Thou shalt nots" but God tells us what TO DO and not just what NOT to do. We need to look at things from the positive side and not the negative. Prov:29:18: "Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, HAPPY is he."

God isnt some stern judge who is out to condemn us, but rather, He wishes us to realize that He tells us what's right and wrong, to make us happy and healthy... physically, mentally and spiritually.

[ December 10, 2004, 06:36 AM: Message edited by: Claudia_T ]

 

This is the problem with snippet texting. The "subject" of Mark 7 is WHEAT that is Unclean because sin is on it. WHEAT -- not RATS!

The idea that Jesus took a subject on WHEAT being unclean (by the claim of MAN's tradition) and used that to argue for RAT SANDWICHES in Mark 7 is totally bogus!!

Jesus points out that the MAN-MADE TRADITION about SIN getting on WHEAT and then going into you and making you a sinner.

Just so - using Christ's argument, twisting it to jump FAR AWAY from the context - and landing on the platform of having Him declare PRE-CROSS that RAT Sandwiches are now ok -- is bogus.

You are making Christ arguing AGAINST the command of God in scripture in Mark 7 - a place where HE argues AGAINST tradition invalidating the command of God!!

How far off the mark must you go in defense of those rat sandwhiches???

In Christ,

Bob

 

My point exactly. Those who bend these texts about the Gospel and grace and evangelism INTO some kind of "Christ died so now we can eat rats with His approval" message - have gone Waaaaay too far. They need to come back to the Gospel.

In this case the law against eating rat sandwiches.

Yes - when you insist that Christ died on the Cross SO THAT the law against eating rat sandwiches can be taken away

OR so that the law of God about loving your neighbor can be taken away

OR so that the Law of God about not comitting adultery can be taken away

THEN I say you are totally missing the mark.

God never intended to FREE US from the restriction AGAINST rat sandwiches or to FREE US from the need to OBEY Him when He says to LOVE God or to FREE us from the need ot OBEY Him when He says to remain faithful to our spouse...

Construing the Cross of Christ AS IF that was His purpose or intent -- cheapens the cross!

"Do we then make VOID the LAw of God by our faith? GOD FORBID! IN fact we ESTABLISH the LAW of God" Rom 3:31.

No - I show that when you INCLUDE the tastey RAT SANDWICH idea INTO your concept of what was accomplished on the cross - you cheapen it.

Hmmm.

SO IF the prohibition against eating rats and saying that other animals "Are edible" and "are for food" was ONLY to teach us that WE like the RAT needed to be clean. (And was NOT placed there to say what the TEXT SAYS - which is that the Rat is not edible is NOT food) then when Christ died - we would be free to chow down on all the rats we could stomach since they would no longer be prohibited JUST to make a point about being cleansed by the blood of Christ!

How "interesting".

And also do you apply that to the LAW of God about Loving God? And About Loving your Neighbor? And about Killing? And About Adultery? And against eating cats?

I mean -- do you consider that He really had no purpose in those laws EXCEPT to show us that we needed Christ? They actually have no other "value" in your view?

Really?

I guess I find that surprising.

OK - but you are now saying that your "ideas" about what IS FOOD for man should trump what GOD SAYS is FOOD for man. And you rules still count - but Gods... don't??

I mean - I fully understand your right to not prefer rats to cats or bats to dogs or whatever you choose - but what about listening to the Creator who created ALL FLESH as HE tells us what flesh is "EDIBLE" what flesh is good for food?

What is wrong with placing God FIRST and man second??

No doubt that some Asian villages have menues God's Word has never recommended for human consumption - but that really doesn't matter as long as THEY are the humans setting the rules and we really don't have to worry about God setting them -- right?

In Isaiah 66 God says that people will be burning in hell who are eating those rats. But maybe He was sorta kidding around before the cross - and then got serious afterwards. Still - I should choose not to eat the rat sandwich in obedience to His Word.

In Lev 11 God says that these rules were to show which food was "EDIBLE" and which flesh "WAS FOR FOOD". He did NOT say "this is just a silly symbol that shows that EVERYONE is a sinner and NOBODY is clean or without sin".

Though I suppose it would have been interesting if he HAD said that having SOME clean and SOME unclean was the best way to point out that we ALL are UNCLEAN.

Very interesting indeed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is the problem. You have added the word "EDIBLE", which we do not see anywhere in the text; in the Hebrew or otherwise. From that, you continue to build your assumption that these are "health" laws; but I showed you in 2 Cor.6:17 and 1Pet.1:15 where Peter and Paul used the "unclean" commandment. I even showed you in your beloeved Isaiah passage how the defilement of "swine" and "dog" were used for God-ordained practices, done with impure (spiritually defiled) hands! For "clean" and "unclean" are spiritual, spiritual, SPIRITUAL concepts. Not "health". Health is physical; spiritual is spiritual. There are poisonous plants, but God NEVER tells us to avoid these. (which you all like to appeal "poisonous plants" to in Gen.9:3 to prove "not everything was edible", thus there were still "restrictions". But God allowed man to eat anything, and it was up to him to find out what was "healthy" or "poisonous")
So we avoid them, not because the Law designates them "unclean", but because we know they are bad for our bodies, and we are not to destroy our temples. No secret codes for foods that "we can't see how they are bad for us, but God knows", even though people have eaten pork and some others for millenia, and are no less healthy than others (As I've pointed out now, it is the "clean" beef and chicken that have taken on the reputation for unhealthiness and disease that pork and shellfish once had. What about that?)

It is not "the law against eating rats". That is not the SUBJECT; it is the avoiding of meats for spiritual purposes--ataining spiritual "cleanness", that is taken away. We still do not eat it because of the negative association, and perhaps that particular animal is not good for us. But now, we are no longer SPIRITUALLY "defiled" if we eat something that perhaps may have touched a dead animal, or touch it ourselves with our hands to remove it Remember, the Law of unclean included these as well. If you remove your dead dog or cat, do you declare yourself "unclean until the evening", and bring a sacrifice as the REST of the Law specified? You cannot take bits and parts of the LAw, and admit that SOME of them are fulfilled by Christ. Did Christ die only so that you would not have to bring an animal to a temple? Or so that you would no longer have to put all leaven out f your house in the spiring? How lazy is your faith then!
No, Christ's fulfilling aspects of the Law does not mean "He died ONLY SO you would no longer have to do such-and-such task anymore".

Once again; you are confusing spiritual laws again. Loving our neighbor, faithful to our spouse amd not killing are spiritual. Eating cats in itself is not; but we avoid them because they have become close to us, and there is no need to eat them. In those countries where they are eaten, God does not judge them for that like He does all the adultery, idolatry, murder and all the rest of their sins.

 

v. 20 also mentions the bringing of offerings, v21, the priests and Levites, and v.23 also mentions the keeping of New Moons. It is obviously a conditional picture of the future under the Old Covenant had Israel remained faithful and ushered in the Kingdom, as originally planned.
In fact, in a recent debate with Preterists, one asked "Is this the New Heaven and Earth?" to try to trip us up. Because if we say it is, then we have just proven their belief that there is still sin and redemption in the new Heaven, and therefore, it must be a picture of now (the new covenant Church after a "spiritual" "second coming" or "parousia" in AD70). I countered with the point I am making here; that this was a conditional picture of the eternal Kingdom, and some of it now applies to the future temporary period we now know as the Millennium. That ended that challenge from the preterist.

Clean and unclean at that time only had reference to sacrifice. Clearly, all animals were allowed after the flood (9:3), and it was only later (At Sinai) that those animals that were declared "unclean" for sacrifice were declared unclean for food (another proof that the Law of unclean was tied to the sacrifice system, then thus would be abrogated with it at the Cross). The Laws that became apart of the Torah of Moses were gradually added after the flood. As Paul says "the Law [of Moses] was added because of sin(Gal.3:19). So if forbidding animals with negative traits didn't teach the people not to associate with uncleanness, then let's forbid them to eat them too. Of course, that still did not work, so what was needed was the Law written in our hearts in the New Covenant.

And recent studies also say that beef is even more unhealthy than pork; and the poultry is what is the most dangerous if not cooked properly. A blood type diet we are practicing now has pork as not being that good for anyone (I don;t eat it anyway), but for my type, chicken is also bad, while rabbit is good! (I'll take the chicken; thank you!). I think shellfish is also good for some blood types. It was always considered very healthy in modern times.
So there is no study that completely matches the foods labeled clean in Lev. being "healthy", and the unclean being "unhealthy". These were spiritual laws, with the behavior and traits of the animal symbolizing behavior that God condemned. Nthing about "health" or "edibility". Do not add these things to scripture!

True, but that has nothing to do with "clean and unclean" according to Leviticus. improprly cooked chicken would violate this, but it is not "unclean" according to the Levitical law.

But then not every herb or tree is "ideal" either. But the poisonous ones are never declared "unclean". Once again, "ideal" and "poisonous" are not the same as "clean" and "unclean".

 

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater does not win the day with Preterists - or any other abberant teaching.

Notice your point above claims that IN the millenium (and NOT in the New Earth as scripture says) the words of Isaiah 66 ARE to be confirmed. "ALL MANKIND" will come before God from Sabbath to Sabbath TO WORSHIP.

It does not say "ALL of mankind that happen to be Jews". So even in your "millenium but not the New Earth" -- edit -- of the text - God has a FUTURE with ALL mankind called upon to obey Christ the Creator - regarding Christ the Creator's OWN holy day - that HE made holy on day 7 of Creation week - for MANKIND.

And why wouldn't Christ the Creator call upon ALL MANKIND to obey? After all - Christ the Creator said "the Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND" Mark 2:27.

So I am not sure how your "edit" is helping your case -- in the end.

It is one thing to claim that sin and punishment are the conditional elements in future prophecy - but when you make the WORSHIP of God ALSO conditional - you are voiding the scripture - voiding the prophecy itself.

Isaiah 66 clearly depicts a time when God is in full control of event without Satan ruling or challenging Him as "the god of this world" (as Paul describes him). Whether that is BEFORE the second coming or AFTER - is the CONDITIONAL aspect and that is why we may or may not see sin and rebellion as part of the story.

But the "promise" is NOT about "rebellion" - the PROMISE is about worship, ALL mankind and the Creator --- and in this case God is specific -- His OWN Sabbath memorial applies to ALL MANKIND when God is in undisputed control - WHENEVER you want to say that is.

Hmmm - - how interesting - eh?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Speaking of those rats, cats, dogs and bats in Lev 11 that God says are not edible - not to be eaten, not for food -- Eric said

So then - man or "God" you choose who will be in the driver's seat on this one.

As for what the text says about food that is to be eaten (edible) vs that which is not --

 

NASB

Leviticus 11
1 The LORD spoke again to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them,
2 ""Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, " These are the creatures which you may eat from all the animals that are on the earth.
3 "Whatever divides a hoof, thus making split hoofs, and chews the cud, among the animals, that you may eat.
4 "Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these, among those which chew the cud, or among those which divide the hoof: the camel, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you.
5 "Likewise, the shaphan, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you;
6 the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you;
7 and the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you.
8 "You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.
9 " These you may eat, whatever is in the water: all that have fins and scales, those in the water, in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat.
10 " But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you,
11 and they shall be abhorrent to you; you may not eat of their flesh, and their carcasses you shall detest.
12 "Whatever in the water does not have fins and scales is abhorrent to you.
13 "These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,
…
19 and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat.
20 "All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you.
21 "Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth.
22 "These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds.
23 "But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.
24 "By these, moreover, you will be made unclean: whoever touches their carcasses becomes unclean until evening,
25 and whoever picks up any of their carcasses shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.
26 "Concerning all the animals which divide the hoof but do not make a split hoof, or which do not chew cud, they are unclean to you: whoever touches them becomes unclean.
27 "Also whatever walks on its paws, among all the creatures that walk on all fours, are unclean to you; whoever touches their carcasses becomes unclean until evening,
28 and the one who picks up their carcasses shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening; they are unclean to you.
29 "Now these are to you the unclean among the swarming things which swarm on the earth: the mole, and the mouse, and the great lizard in its kinds,
30 and the gecko, and the crocodile, and the lizard, and the sand reptile, and the chameleon.
31 "These are to you the unclean among all the swarming things; whoever touches them when they are dead becomes unclean until evening.
32 "Also anything on which one of them may fall when they are dead becomes unclean, including any wooden article, or clothing, or a skin, or a sackany article of which use is made it shall be put in the water and be unclean until evening, then it becomes clean.
33 "As for any earthenware vessel into which one of them may fall, whatever is in it becomes unclean and you shall break the vessel.
34 "Any of the food which may be eaten, on which water comes, shall become unclean, and any liquid which may be drunk in every vessel shall become unclean.
35 "[/b]Everything, moreover, on which part of their carcass may fall becomes unclean; an oven or a stove shall be smashed; they are unclean[/b] and shall continue as unclean to you.
36 "Nevertheless a spring or a cistern collecting water shall be clean, though the one who touches their carcass shall be unclean.
37 "If a part of their carcass falls on any seed for sowing which is to be sown, it is clean.
38 "Though if water is put on the seed and a part of their carcass falls on it, it is unclean to you.
39 "Also if one of the animals dies which you have for food, the one who touches its carcass becomes unclean until evening.
40 " He too, who eats some of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening, and the one who picks up its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.
41 " Now every swarming thing that swarms on the earth is detestable, not to be eaten.
42 "Whatever crawls on its belly, and whatever walks on all fours, whatever has many feet, in respect to every swarming thing that swarms on the earth, you shall not eat them, for they are detestable.
43 " Do not render yourselves detestable through any of the swarming things that swarm; and you shall not make yourselves unclean with them so that you become unclean.
44 "For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things that swarm on the earth.
45 " For I am the LORD who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy.'''
46 This is the law regarding the animal and the bird, and every living thing that moves in the waters and everything that swarms on the earth,
47 to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the edible creature and the creature which is not to be eaten.

 

What you missed (regarding "conditional") is where I said it was conditional...of the future under the Old Covenant had Israel remained faithful and ushered in the Kingdom, as originally planned.
That did not happen, so it all has changed. Proof is that even you do not believe God will reinstitute the Levitical priesthood, or New Moon celebrations; let alone them being in effect now.

As for "edible", that's some translation you are using. The Hebrew is not "edible", it is just "eat". "Edible" does not mean allowed to eat (and for a spiritual reason!), but what is physically safe to eat. Leviticus does not tell us what is safe to eat; only what God is allowing, for a spiritual purpose. Once again, the result of eating it was "defilement", bit bad health, and defilemane was spiritual.

 

Undisputable facts.

#1. The Clean and unclean disctinction is made in Gen 6 and 7 long before there is any Jew.

#2. The distinction can NOT be used to show that some people have no sin and need no savior while other people need a savior and are "unclean". Because that would be error.

#3. Never do we see Peter eating rat sandwiches NOR does the vision that Peter have in acts emphasize that the TASTY unclean animals are the only ones that came down from heaven. RATHER it was the "destable" crawling things -- that even you have said are not good for us.

#4. Peter relates the vision 3 times and ALWAYS gives the meaning as Gospel preaching going to Gentiles - but NEVER - that rat sandwhiches have finally been given the approval by God, or that Jews can now eat Gentiles! It just isn't there. The vision is not about dinner - but about evangelism using dinner as a SYMBOL.

As for Lev 11 - "Edible" vs "NOT to be eaten" IS in the text and health IS in the text (water on carcasses even clean ones - becomes unclean for example).

In Lev 11 - dogs and cats (animals with paws) are out! Explicitly. And you are so convinced this has nothing to do with health???!!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. I have never spoken against God's plan to have all mankind come before HIM to worship on New Moons in the New Earth.

#2. The only "conditional" aspect is WHEN it is fulfilled - "this side of the 2nd coming or actually IN the NEW Earth". Prior to Israels fall it could have been BOTH - but now that they are fallen - it can only be after the 2nd coming - in the New Earth.

Certainly - these are events long future to Isaiah -- and shows an "ALL MANKIND" scope to Christ the Creator's memorial of His own creative act in making us.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The water also is defiled, and yet again, defilement is spiritual, not a health issue.
And once again, in Gen. 6 and 7 unclean only had bearing on its use for sacrifice.

 

But you don't believe it is necesarily so. And what about the Levitical priests?

there wouldn't have been a "second coming" or new earth under the conditional picture. The whole purpose of those was because Israel broke the covenant, and of course, God was trying to show us that a new earth was what we needed all along, not the Old Covenant Law.