What does Paul mean, when he says

[Elijah John]

Romans 14.33

..for whatever is not of faith is sin.

What does this mean? Is everything a person does during the course of a day a matter of faith? Are mundane activities "of faith"? If not, are mundane things "sin"?

[tam]

Peace to you,

Here is yet another example of applying a text which is explicitly dealing with vegetarianism to the dietary laws. This has nothing to do with the dietary laws. Please be so kind as to show where the dietary laws give any indication that one can only eat vegetables.

I think you are taking my response out of context.

Paul states that all food is clean in the same chapter:

Sure, all food is clean, but anything and everything one puts into their mouths isn't food. People put cigars into their mouths, but that's not food, and the bible doesn't define swine or shellfish as food to begin with, so you assertions are without any biblical suppport. You're simply assuming that pork is food when it isn't; at least not according to the bible.

The bible does not 'say' that pork is not food.


Israel was permitted to eat the meat of clean animals, and not permitted to eat the meat of unclean animals.

Dietary restrictions had to do with clean and unclean animals. Not 'this is food and that is not food'.

It is a dietary restriction because it is a food restriction. Pork is food. But from an unclean animal; therefore Israel was not permitted to eat its meat.

I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord [Jesus], that nothing is unclean in itself. (verse 14)

So you seem to be claiming that anything can be put into your mouth? This is precisely what drug addicts and homosexuals claim with this same passage, and their claims are just as legitimate as yours because they're using the exact same logic as you are.

Are you arguing with me or with Paul?

What about Christ?


“Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.� After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. “Are you so dull?� he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.� (In saying this, [Jesus] declared all foods clean.)

He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.�


and:

A man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but by what comes out of it.� Matthew 15:11

All food is clean... (verse 20)

And yet Paul never once made any suggestion that pork or shellfish is food.

Nor did Paul or anyone else ever suggest that pork or shellfish is not food.


This argument is just an attempt to bypass the fact that all food is clean, by declaring that the food previously deemed unclean for Israel, is simply not food to begin with.

We are not under the law of Moses (which was part of the old covenant, which has passed away, as you know).

Right, which means we needn't keep any of God's commandments, right?

Did I state something untrue there?

We are to obey Christ, and if we are in Him, then we are in the new covenant, and the law of the new covenant that is written upon the heart is love (which does not steal or bear false witness, etc).

We are clean if we are in Christ because He makes us clean. We are certainly not rendered unclean by eating pork or shellfish. Because it is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean; rather it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean.

We are under Christ, and the law of the new covenant (the law that is from the beginning, the law that is written upon the heart) is love.

Right, and loving what God loves means hating what God hates, and God absolutely detests anyone who places filthy polluted animals into their mouth.

Not only is it untrue that God hates someone if/because they eat pork (or shellfish), this attempt to place people under the previous dietary laws is not much different than those men who had infiltrated the ranks of Paul (et al) in order to spy upon the freedom they had in Christ. The issue at that time was circumcision.



You are certainly free to eat or not whatever meat (or other things) as you choose. I am not judging you or anyone else by what you choose to eat (or not eat).


But it is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean.





Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[2timothy316]

I most certainly did address it, and I refuted it with the more in depth reference found in Acts 15:20,21 which you have yet to address.

I addressed it in post 16 Here it is again:

Quote:
In Acts 15:28 we read what laws are still in place for all followers of Christ today. "For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper." - Acts 15:29. Note there are no laws that one must eat or not eat pork.


Note that there are no prohibitions against bestiality or necrophilia either.

This doesn't address it. Bestiality and necrophilia would be covered under 'sexual immorality'. Abstaining from blood and from what is strangled wouldn't cover pork. Care to try again?

I also didn't see where you addressed David eating the showbread. Why did the priest allow him to break the law? The law was clear no one was to eat bread meant for the priest, yet here's David noshing on their bread. The priest just merely made sure they were clean. If all laws are equal, does that mean that we can break the 'love Jehovah your God' law too at will? After all David broke the law didn't he?

[shnarkle]

Here is yet another example of applying a text which is explicitly dealing with vegetarianism to the dietary laws. This has nothing to do with the dietary laws. Please be so kind as to show where the dietary laws give any indication that one can only eat vegetables.

I think you are taking my response out of context.

Why would you think that? You're claiming that the passage cited does away with the dietary laws, no? Why would vegetarianism do away with the dietary laws? More to the point, why do you think the passage you referenced has anything to do with the dietary laws when it is explicitly dealing with those who think we should all be vegetarians?

Paul states that all food is clean in the same chapter:

Sure, all food is clean, but anything and everything one puts into their mouths isn't food. People put cigars into their mouths, but that's not food, and the bible doesn't define swine or shellfish as food to begin with, so you assertions are without any biblical suppport. You're simply assuming that pork is food when it isn't; at least not according to the bible.

The bible does not 'say' that pork is not food.[/quote]

It most certainly does. The bible repeatedly points out that it is (from the Hebrew: "tame") filthy, polluted, unacceptable as food. More importantly, God instructs Moses to let His people know that God finds it "an abomination" to eat garbage. This is "utterly detestable" to God. That's what "an abomination" means.

Israel was permitted to eat the meat of clean animals, and not permitted to eat the meat of unclean animals.

Correct, unclean animals are not considered food.

Dietary restrictions had to do with clean and unclean animals. Not 'this is food and that is not food'.

Please connect the dots which force you to come to this conclusion. God tells Noah to put one pair of unclean animals in the Ark and seven pairs of clean. Do you honestly believe Noah ate any unclean animals???

It is a dietary restriction because it is a food restriction.

This is non sequitur. You are referring to it as a restriction, but it is simply pointing out God's will.

Pork is food.

Not as defined in the bible. Not as defined in the Old and New Testaments.

But from an unclean animal; therefore Israel was not permitted to eat its meat.

Israel wasn't permitted to have anything to do with unclean animals. They're filthy and disgusting.

I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord [Jesus], that nothing is unclean in itself. (verse 14)

So you seem to be claiming that anything can be put into your mouth? This is precisely what drug addicts and homosexuals claim with this same passage, and their claims are just as legitimate as yours because they're using the exact same logic as you are.

Are you arguing with me or with Paul?

I'm agreeing with Paul, and arguing with you. Your argument is with legalists. I'm not a legalist. Swine isn't food, and there is nothing in the bible to indicate that Paul, Peter, James, John, or Christ ever ate garbage.

What about Christ?


“Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.�

Look at the context. The whole subject is ritual washing. Did you notice that? Christ concludes that "eating with unwashed hands does not defile" Matthew 15:20 He does not conclude with "eating garbage is perfectly acceptable now". Christ is pointing out where sin originates. It originates in one's heart, and that heart conceives sin which is transgression of God's law. God's law includes the prohibition to eat garbage. Therefore eating garbage is a sin and that sin originates in one's heart.

After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. “Are you so dull?� he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?

Christ was originally speaking to the Pharisees who had originally posed the question to him, and now he's addressing his own disciples who were ALL Jews. Jews don't eat pork, so to assume that his statements would have included sinful behavior makes no sense whatsoever. Again, you're ignoring what I've already pointed out. Why?

For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.� (In saying this, [Jesus] declared all foods clean.)

There are two major problems with your false conclusions. The first is that if one of Christ's disciples had neglected to wash after having relations with their wife, Christ's conclusion would have looked like this: "For it doesn't go into their heart, but the womb, and then out during a woman's period of separation" (in saying this, (Jesus) declared all sexual activity clean)

Those who see nothing wrong with all types of sexual activity are now free to do as they please. If you agree to one, you must agree to the other as they are both cleanliness laws which is explicitly what you're doing away with. You don't get to arbitrarily cherry pick which you get to keep and which you can ignore.


The second problem is that this parenthetical statement is not found in any of the original manuscripts. It doesn't appear anywhere except in the Codex Bezai around 400 AD. and even then it is only found in the margins. It is a marginal note by a scribe who didn't know what he was talking about. Rotten food is, according to the Mosaic law; "unclean".

He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.�

Again, he is pointing out where sin originates, he isn't redefining sin.

And yet Paul never once made any suggestion that pork or shellfish is food.

Nor did Paul or anyone else ever suggest that pork or shellfish is not food.

Why would he need to tell people pork or shellfish isn't food when they already know this?

Notice that there are not prohibitions against eating rocks. The reason being that no one was eating rocks to begin with.

This argument is just an attempt to bypass the fact that all food is clean,

Not even close. I'm simply pointing out that your claims have no scriptural support. You are just attempting to ignore the fact that unclean animals are never referred to as food. If so, where???

by declaring that the food previously deemed unclean for Israel, is simply not food to begin with.

You will find no observant Jews who have ever thought otherwise. What you fail to understand is that an observant Jew who reaches adulthood would not be able to eat pork or shellfish without becoming violently ill. It would be like eating feces. It would be like a faithful loving husband being told they can engage in fornication with a whore. It is revolting to them. God says it is disgusting. Your disagreement is with God.

We are not under the law of Moses (which was part of the old covenant, which has passed away, as you know).

Right, which means we needn't keep any of God's commandments, right?

Did I state something untrue there?

Most certainly. Each and every place where Paul refers to the law being done away with is explicitly dealing with one of two subjects: 1. the sacrificial system e.g. "the curse", "the law that was added because of transgressions"; the handwriting of ordinances that were against us"

2. justification or self righteousness. No one is justified by keeping any law, but that does not mean that one does not keep God's commandments. It means that those who are reborn believers no longer sin, therefore there is no need for a sacrificial system to cover sins they will no longer commit. Paul puts it plainly: "Those who walk after the Spirit do not fulfill the lust of the flesh"

We are clean if we are in Christ because He makes us clean.

Yep, and that is the only way one becomes clean, but to then assume one can then go out and transgress God's laws shows us all that we are only deceived.

We are certainly not rendered unclean by eating pork or shellfish.

Correct, we are rendered unclean by a "desperately wicked and deceitful heart" that wants only to sin. The sin is in the heart and that is where the defilement originates. Actually committing the sin is anticlimactic when one is already in a state of defilement.

Because it is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean; rather it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean.

Again, the drug addicts and those who engage in sodomy are in full agreement with your logic.

We are under Christ, and the law of the new covenant (the law that is from the beginning, the law that is written upon the heart) is love.

Right, and loving what God loves means hating what God hates, and God absolutely detests anyone who places filthy polluted animals into their mouth.

Not only is it untrue that God hates someone if/because they eat pork (or shellfish), this attempt to place people under the previous dietary laws is not much different than those men who had infiltrated the ranks of Paul (et al) in order to spy upon the freedom they had in Christ.

By "freedom" you're claiming license which is in itself an explicitly named sin in the New Testament. Even pagans understand that can't be right.

The issue at that time was circumcision.

Not really. The issue was justification or establishing one's righteousness. Circumcision was only one of many examples, and Paul refutes your claims himself by pointing out that those who keep God's commandments are the only one's who may benefit from circumcision. In fact, he goes as far as to point out that those who boast in keeping God's law, then God is blasphemed through them. You're claiming that this is God's law which is to be kept.

Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24
For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25
For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26
Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27
And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

it is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean.

Right, it's the desire to eat garbage that defiles him. Eating garbage only confirms to the world what God already knows.

[shnarkle]

Bestiality and necrophilia would be covered under 'sexual immorality'. Abstaining from blood and from what is strangled wouldn't cover pork. Care to try again?

Look at what you're doing here. The bible explicilty states that pork isn't food, but then you conclude that it now is food, therefore we should drain the blood out. However, since you consider bestiality to be equivalent to sexual immorality, therefore it's included. The fact is that necrophilia is placed within the prohibitions for cleanliness for PRIESTS, and prieslty duties which are explicitly done away with. Can anyone say "double standard"? See Leviticus chapter 21 Sexual relations are covered elsewhere. Bestiality, necrophilia and sodomy are considered "confusion" by God. To think of this as a sexual relation indicates that one is confused.

I also didn't see where you addressed David eating the showbread. Why did the priest allow him to break the law? The law was clear no one was to eat bread meant for the priest, yet here's David noshing on their bread. The priest just merely made sure they were clean. If all laws are equal, does that mean that we can break the 'love Jehovah your God' law too at will? After all David broke the law didn't he?

Look at the context. Conflating legalism with breaking the law is the problem; not actually any violation of the law. You haven't addressed most of my arguments so you've got some catching up to do.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Here is yet another example of applying a text which is explicitly dealing with vegetarianism to the dietary laws. This has nothing to do with the dietary laws. Please be so kind as to show where the dietary laws give any indication that one can only eat vegetables.

I think you are taking my response out of context.

Why would you think that? You're claiming that the passage cited does away with the dietary laws, no? Why would vegetarianism do away with the dietary laws? More to the point, why do you think the passage you referenced has anything to do with the dietary laws when it is explicitly dealing with those who think we should all be vegetarians?

My post was in response to the suggestion that Paul was telling his fellow Jews in this letter, to stop giving the Gentiles a hard time about what they were eating... because said gentiles were new and would eventually come around to obeying dietary laws of the Jews.

Israel was permitted to eat the meat of clean animals, and not permitted to eat the meat of unclean animals.

Correct, unclean animals are not considered food.

Incorrect.

The meat of unclean animals was not permitted to be eaten by Israel.

The point is that some food is clean (and so good) and some food is unclean (and so bad).



The food that Christ gives us - the manna that is his body; as well as the manna that is his word - this manna (food) is clean and good. It is truth from the Truth, the Holy One of God: Christ.

My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

The one who feeds on Christ will live because of Him.



Then there is food (words, teachings) that others (such as religions) 'sell' that is bad for you; unclean; lies that do not give or sustain life (just the opposite).



Israel was to learn the difference between clean and unclean.

**

{Israel was given other physical representations to help us to see the spiritual realities as well. Such as how the physical temple should help us see the spiritual reality (that the true temple is the living temple - the body of Christ - that the living God dwells within). The same with circumcision of the flesh may help us to understand the circumcision of the heart (not the heart of flesh, but of the spirit)}

What about Christ?


“Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.�

Look at the context. The whole subject is ritual washing. Did you notice that? Christ concludes that "eating with unwashed hands does not defile" Matthew 15:20 He does not conclude with "eating garbage is perfectly acceptable now". Christ is pointing out where sin originates. It originates in one's heart, and that heart conceives sin which is transgression of God's law. God's law includes the prohibition to eat garbage. Therefore eating garbage is a sin and that sin originates in one's heart.

Yes, sin begins in the heart. But by your logic, eating with unwashed hands could have been the sin that originated in the heart. This is clearly not the point that my Lord was making.


His words can apply to more than just this ritual washing of hands, and we can see that in His other words that were understood more fully, later. Such as what Temple He was referring to that could be torn down and built back up in three days.

{Not that the Jews could have started eating pork and shellfish at that moment, even if they had understood this. They were still very much under the law and part of the old covenant. The new covenant had not yet been instituted.}

He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.�

Again, he is pointing out where sin originates, he isn't redefining sin.

He is pointing out what actually defiles a person (and where those things that defile a person comes from).

How does eating pork or shellfish cause sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly?

And yet Paul never once made any suggestion that pork or shellfish is food.

Nor did Paul or anyone else ever suggest that pork or shellfish is not food.

Why would he need to tell people pork or shellfish isn't food when they already know this?

Notice that there are not prohibitions against eating rocks. The reason being that no one was eating rocks to begin with.

Yes, because rocks are not food and everyone knows that rocks are not food*.

But that is not the case with pork or shellfish; hence there must be a prohibition made against eating them.


(*unless one is referring to Christ as the Rock, because Christ is the true manna from heaven, from whom we may eat and drink and live)

This argument is just an attempt to bypass the fact that all food is clean,

Not even close. I'm simply pointing out that your claims have no scriptural support. You are just attempting to ignore the fact that unclean animals are never referred to as food. If so, where???

Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals did he not?

Yet after the flood God still said to him:

Every living creature will be food for you; just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you all things. But you must not eat meat with its lifeblood still in it.


The only prohibition was eating meat with lifeblood still in it.


(Also, unclean food is still called food; it is just not food that Israel was permitted to eat: They will not remain in the LORD's land; Ephraim will return to Egypt and eat unclean food in Assyria.)

by declaring that the food previously deemed unclean for Israel, is simply not food to begin with.

You will find no observant Jews who have ever thought otherwise. What you fail to understand is that an observant Jew who reaches adulthood would not be able to eat pork or shellfish without becoming violently ill.

As a psychological reason you mean?

Because unless the pork or shellfish was prepared or stored improperly (or they were allergic), there is no reason to assume that they would be violently ill from eating such things.

We are clean if we are in Christ because He makes us clean.

Yep, and that is the only way one becomes clean, but to then assume one can then go out and transgress God's laws shows us all that we are only deceived.

You skipped this part of what I wrote:

We are to obey Christ, and if we are in Him, then we are in the new covenant, and the law of the new covenant that is written upon the heart is love (which does not steal or bear false witness, etc).




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 25 by tam]

My post was in response to the suggestion that Paul was telling his fellow Jews in this letter, to stop giving the Gentiles a hard time about what they were eating... because said gentiles were new and would eventually come around to obeying dietary laws of the Jews.

Where does Paul suggest that it is okay to let gentiles converts continue to sin in any of his letters?

unclean animals are not considered food.

Incorrect.

Please be so kind as to show where the Mosaic law refers to unclean animals as food

The meat of unclean animals was not permitted to be eaten by Israel.

Exodus 12:49 points out that God doesn't have a different law for Gentiles.

Noah knew what an unclean animal was before he built the Ark, and there is no logical way it makes sense for Noah to interpret "filth" as acceptable for food.

The point is that some food is clean (and so good) and some food is unclean (and so bad).

Why would God give food to people if it is "so bad"? Why would God even refer to it as food to begin with? The fact is that it isn't considered or referred to as food anywhere in the bible. I will simply ask you again. If so, where?

Israel was to learn the difference between clean and unclean.

God doesn't have a different law for Gentiles

**

{Israel was given other physical representations to help us to see the spiritual realities as well.

Right, the spiritual reality is seen in keeping God's laws in one's heart which in turn results in God's law being kept outwardly as well.

Such as how the physical temple should help us see the spiritual reality (that the true temple is the living temple

Right, and just as one never should introduce filthy animals for sacrifice, the same holds true when dealing with the living temple as well.

- the body of Christ - that the living God dwells within).

And he doesn't dwell with filthy, polluted swine.

The same with circumcision of the flesh may help us to understand the circumcision of the heart (not the heart of flesh, but of the spirit)}

Not likely. Circumcision is only a benefit when one keeps God's law(Romans 2:25), and you've just effectively made the claim that God's laws don't need to be kept so circumcision will be of no use to you whatsoever. Moreover, Paul goes on to point out that if those who are uncircumcised keep God's law, they will judge those who don't(Romans 2:27).

He also points out that if you're going to boast that you love God, which is to fulfill God's law; then turn around and point out that you not only don't keep God's law, but justify it, then "the name of God is blasphemed through you"(Romans 2:24), and it is "an abomination" according to Christ (Luke 16:15)

sin begins in the heart. But by your logic, eating with unwashed hands could have been the sin that originated in the heart. This is clearly not the point that my Lord was making.

It most certainly is the point he was making. He goes into great detail pointing out that all sin originates in the heart, but just as important is the fact that washing your hands will not clean your heart. There simply is nothing that can be done to cleanse one from their ontological state of defilement. Only God can do it, and once that happens, the new creature in Christ cannot sin. Paul explicitly states this in Galatians, e.g. "Those who walk after the Spirit do not fulfill the lust of the flesh".

His words can apply to more than just this ritual washing of hands, and we can see that in His other words that were understood more fully, later. Such as what Temple He was referring to that could be torn down and built back up in three days.

What's your point? I don't see the connection.

{Not that the Jews could have started eating pork and shellfish at that moment, even if they had understood this. They were still very much under the law and part of the old covenant. The new covenant had not yet been instituted.}

So there's nothing inherently idiotic about eating pork? What you're effectively saying is that there really is nothing wrong with transgressing God's law due to the fact that they're essentially just arbitrary laws to begin with. When God points out that eating pork is "an abomination", what he really means is, "eating pork when I say not to eat pork is an abomination, but when I say it's okay, then it's okay". We could just as easily apply this principle to the rest of God's law, and this does seem to be the case with Christianity in general.

How does eating pork or shellfish cause sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly?

It is quite arrogant to view God's laws as capricious, and to eat what God explicitly states is "filth" is one of the best examples of folly imaginable. It also seems to be the case that those who disregard God's law do seem to be quite deceived, and even intentionally engaging in deceit themselves.

Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals did he not?

Correct, and he knew the difference BEFORE he built the Ark. Noah had long been offering sacrifices to God, and never once offered swine on his alter. How do we know this? Because the text states "Noah walked with God". He was obedient. There is no way God would have allowed Noah to offer swine to Him. Noah also knows that filthy animals should never be eaten. God doesn't have one law for Jews and another law for everyone else. The texts are clear. God has "one law for the native born and the foreign born alike" Exodus 12:49

Yet after the flood God still said to him:

Every living creature will be food for you; just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you all things. But you must not eat meat with its lifeblood still in it.

Notice where it says, "just as I gave you the green plants"? The next time you fix yourself a salad, don't forget to include hemlock and nightshade because if you honestly think "all" means "all" plantlife, then "it's all good" right? You don't need God to spell out that nightshade or hemlock is not acceptable as food, but when God explicitly points out that to eat pork or shellfish is "an abomination" and utterly detestable, for some reason this looks like an invitation to eat it? The Hebrew "tame"means "filthy, polluted", and God points out that it is disgusting to eat something that is filthy and polluted, but when Paul points out that you don't have to be a vegetarian, this means it's okay to keep on eating garbage?

Here again, "meat" doesn't include unclean animals. They aren't "meat". A better translation would be "food", but hey let's not forget that given that swine is not considered food to begin with, draining blood from it isn't necessary. That qualifier only applies to what God defines as food.

The only prohibition was eating meat with lifeblood still in it.

Sure, and pork isn't considered meat in the bible so it doesn't apply to eating pork or shellfish.

(Also, unclean food is still called food;

You're ignoring what I already posted. I pointed out that unclean animals are not considered food. There is no such thing as unclean food in the bible. There is only that which is clean or unclean. However, the only case where it does actually apply to food is when it has gone bad. When food goes bad and becomes rotten it is unclean, but according to your logic it is now "clean" It's all good.

Nobody ever addresses the fact that rotten food is unclean, but according to your logic it is now clean and acceptable to be eaten. Christians never stop to think how crazy this all is. The bible is clear in making no distinctions between swine, shellfish, and anything that has gone bad. They are all unacceptable as food. They are all unclean. There is no biblical exception in the New Testament which clarifies that it's all good except for rotten food. Unclean food is rotten food.

You will find no observant Jews who have ever thought otherwise. What you fail to understand is that an observant Jew who reaches adulthood would not be able to eat pork or shellfish without becoming violently ill.


As a psychological reason you mean?

No, as a physical response from a healthy body that is functioning properly Eating filth naturally causes the body to discharge what it see's as toxic. When one eats garbage normally, they build up a tolerance for garbage. It is quite easy when one is young to do incredible harm to the body because the body is quite resilient, but as one ages, these harmful effects begin to pile up with sickness and disease followed by an early death.

Because unless the pork or shellfish was prepared or stored improperly (or they were allergic), there is no reason to assume that they would be violently ill from eating such things.

It is very much like an allergic reaction. Alcoholics can consume massive amounts of alcohol with no apparent effects whatsoever. Some can't function without it, but to give what they injest regularly to someone who isn't an alcoholic would kill them. There are numerous cases of alcoholics with a BAC level of 0.4 which is enough to kill most people. It is the same way with a bad diet.

There are people who grew up eating nothing but fast food, and can no longer handle fresh fruits or vegetables. It will make them violently ill. They are not averse to eating them, they just don't have a constitution to handle it anymore. It is the same with pork, but a much more healthy response to what is inherintly hazardous to one's health.

Swine are not designed to be eaten (or if you prefer, they're not adapted to be nutritious for human consumption). They have no sweat glands. They store not just the toxins that they produce, but the toxins from what they consume. They are marvelously efficient at containing filth, and pollution not just in their fat, but in their muscle as well.

Inject a deadly virus into swine and the swine has an immune response that instantly begins producing antibodies to protect it from the virus. It allows the swine to be a carrier of these deadly viruses without dying from them. This is why the texts point out not to even touch them. I keep pointing out that all one needs to do to see how deadly they are is to take a peek at our federal regulations dealing with raising swine. It's horrific. You can't walk around a hog farm without a haz mat suit on, and if you did, you might as well do the same thing at a toxic waste dump because that's effectively what swine are. Hog farms today feed their hogs a superior diet compared to what hogs were fed in antiquity. Even so, those who have taken care of their bodies with a healthy diet are guarenteed to hurl their guts up. The effects would have been hundredfold worse 2,000 years ago. Christians think observant Jews are giving something up by not eating swine, or shellfish, but the opposite is the case. Observant Jews wouldn't touch that stuff if you paid them because it's blatanly disgusting. They hate what God hates, and for good reason.

You skipped this part of what I wrote:

I didn't skip anything.

We are to obey Christ, and if we are in Him, then we are in the new covenant, and the law of the new covenant that is written upon the heart is love (which does not steal or bear false witness, etc).

Or desecrate or profane God's Sabbath, or the temple which is the body by putting filthy and polluted garbage into it. God says it's "utterly detestable" to do such things, and it never entered Christ's mind to do such nonsense. There can be no sin in Christ, therefore only those who love God do not transgress God's law. They are the only one's who can be in Christ.

There is no justification for redefining sin. It isn't biblical. Only a capricious god condones what he once found detestable. Only a capricious god forbids one from eating garbage while condoning it in others. The bible says that God is not a respecter of persons, so there can be no justification for those who choose to distinguish between Jews and Gentiles when those distinctions no longer exist. The simple fact is that the bible doesn't allow people to cherry pick and decide what's right and what's wrong about God's law. The story of Adam and Eve shows how well that idea turned out.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 25 by tam]

My post was in response to the suggestion that Paul was telling his fellow Jews in this letter, to stop giving the Gentiles a hard time about what they were eating... because said gentiles were new and would eventually come around to obeying dietary laws of the Jews.

Where does Paul suggest that it is okay to let gentiles converts continue to sin in any of his letters?

I'm not sure why you are asking me this question. Paul did not consider any food to be unclean, and so he would not have suggested that they were sinning by anything they were eating (unless they themselves thought their food was unclean and that eating it was a sin).

unclean animals are not considered food.

Incorrect.

Please be so kind as to show where the Mosaic law refers to unclean animals as food

Please be so kind as to show where the Mosaic law states that unclean animals are not in the food category at all.

The law stated that the meat of unclean animals was not permitted to be eaten by Israel. The law does not state that the meat of some animals is food, and the meat of other animals is not food. The law did not make that distinction; the law made the distinction between clean and unclean animals; even of clean and unclean food.

The meat of unclean animals was not permitted to be eaten by Israel.

Exodus 12:49 points out that God doesn't have a different law for Gentiles.

Israel was given certain laws (that Gentiles were not given) because Israel was meant to be a holy nation. So they had to learn to distinguish between the holy and the common; the clean and the unclean.

From Deuteronomy 14:


"You are the children of [the LORD] your God. Do not cut yourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead, for you are a people holy to [the LORD] your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, [the LORD] has chosen you to be his treasured possession....


... All flying insects are unclean to you; do not eat them. But any winged creature that is clean you may eat.

Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to the foreigner residing in any of your towns, and they may eat it, or you may sell it to any other foreigner. But you are a people holy to [the LORD] your God.



This is clearly a different standard for a foreigner, than for a member of Israel.

Such as how the physical temple should help us see the spiritual reality (that the true temple is the living temple

Right, and just as one never should introduce filthy animals for sacrifice, the same holds true when dealing with the living temple as well.

The living Temple - which is the body of Christ - has no animal sacrifices. Christ is the One sacrifice, for all time.

- the body of Christ - that the living God dwells within).

And he doesn't dwell with filthy, polluted swine.

This does not even make sense. As Christ said, what goes into the mouth, goes into the stomach and out the body. We are not made unclean by what we consume (physically).

The same with circumcision of the flesh may help us to understand the circumcision of the heart (not the heart of flesh, but of the spirit)}

Not likely. Circumcision is only a benefit when one keeps God's law(Romans 2:25), and you've just effectively made the claim that God's laws don't need to be kept so circumcision will be of no use to you whatsoever. Moreover, Paul goes on to point out that if those who are uncircumcised keep God's law, they will judge those who don't(Romans 2:27).

I have consistently said that love is the law (love does not steal, love does not commit adultery, love does not bear false witness; love does not commit murder); Paul also said that love is the fulfillment of the law.

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,� “You shall not murder,� “You shall not steal,� “You shall not covet,� and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.� Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.



Paul also wrote:

For in Christ [Jesus] neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. All that matters is faith, expressed through love.


Paul also said to stop judging one another, specifically he said this about judging others over what they eat (or don't eat).


I am not judging you (or anyone else) over what you choose not to eat - not because Paul said not to judge, but because Christ said not to judge. Christ is the One to whom I listen.

His words can apply to more than just this ritual washing of hands, and we can see that in His other words that were understood more fully, later. Such as what Temple He was referring to that could be torn down and built back up in three days.

What's your point? I don't see the connection.

You seem to be limiting his words "It is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean' to only eating with unwashed hands. His words are about more than just this.

How does eating pork or shellfish cause sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly?

It is quite arrogant to view God's laws as capricious, and to eat what God explicitly states is "filth" is one of the best examples of folly imaginable. It also seems to be the case that those who disregard God's law do seem to be quite deceived, and even intentionally engaging in deceit themselves.

You did not answer my question.

(Also, unclean food is still called food;

You're ignoring what I already posted. I pointed out that unclean animals are not considered food. There is no such thing as unclean food in the bible.

This is not true and I specifically quoted a verse in my previous post that used the words 'unclean food'.

There is only that which is clean or unclean. However, the only case where it does actually apply to food is when it has gone bad. When food goes bad and becomes rotten it is unclean, but according to your logic it is now "clean" It's all good.

Nobody ever addresses the fact that rotten food is unclean, but according to your logic it is now clean and acceptable to be eaten.

Lets address that issue now then.


Lets say that someone ate rotten food. Perhaps they have a mental disorder or some strange hormonal disorder causing them to crave rotten food. Perhaps they are homeless or starving. Whatever their reason, someone has eaten rotten food. That person will probably get sick (so it is not wise to eat rotten food), and depending upon how bad it is, they might even die.


But that person will not be rendered unclean before God because of the rotten food they ingested. Because it is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean!

But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander.

Because unless the pork or shellfish was prepared or stored improperly (or they were allergic), there is no reason to assume that they would be violently ill from eating such things.

It is very much like an allergic reaction. Alcoholics can consume massive amounts of alcohol with no apparent effects whatsoever.

I agree with you that an alcoholic can function with greater amounts of alcohol than someone who does not drink at all; and some can drink more than others because of tolerance, but there is definitely an effect on the bodies of an alcoholic (even if it is not seen on the outside until later). Liver damage springs to mind. And in fact, an alcoholic will have withdrawal if he suddenly stops drinking, even just for a single day.

There are people who grew up eating nothing but fast food, and can no longer handle fresh fruits or vegetables. It will make them violently ill.

In the short term, it can make them uncomfortable (gastrointestinal discomfort; same goes for anything that the body is not accustomed to eating and digesting). That does not make vegetables bad though, right? Just something that the body is unaccustomed to eating and digesting.

We are to obey Christ, and if we are in Him, then we are in the new covenant, and the law of the new covenant that is written upon the heart is love (which does not steal or bear false witness, etc).

Or desecrate or profane God's Sabbath,

Every day is a sabbath; a day to set aside ourselves and do the work that God gives us.

or the temple which is the body by putting filthy and polluted garbage into it.

Ah.

The Temple is not our physical flesh and blood body. This flesh and blood has sin and death in it. No matter how good you take care of it; it will get sick or injured, and it will die. We will be given NEW bodies when Christ returns: the white robe that has only LIFE in it (no sin and no death).


This flesh counts for nothing.

The Temple is the Body of Christ - made of people who are in Christ - with Him as our Head.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[postroad]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]


Galatians 3:21-23 New International Version (NIV)

21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

Children of God
23 Before the coming of this faith,[a] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.

Everything that is done in order to become righteous through the Law will not be counted as righteousness according to Paul.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]


Galatians 3:21-23 New International Version (NIV)

21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

Children of God
23 Before the coming of this faith,[a] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.

Everything that is done in order to become righteous through the Law will not be counted as righteousness according to Paul.

The faith that was to come is revealed in the church manifesting God's will (which is the seen in the law being fulfilled in the church) "by faith". The law is "established by faith".

The law could never actually make one righteous, but it was imputed as righteousness if one kept it. Doing the right thing is always the right thing to do, but until one has the faith of Christ dwelling in them, one will have to continue to do the right thing by their own "will and effort" which will inevitably lead to failure.

As Paul points out, "those who walk after the spirit do not fulfill the lust of the flesh", which necessarily means that if one fulfill the lust of the flesh, they clearly are not begin led by the Spirit, and faith has not been revealed to them. They must necessarily rely upon Christ's sacrifice to cover their faults and failings until the faith of Christ be revealed to them.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 29 by shnarkle]

I'm calling the new covenant as big a failure as the old. Using the logic of Paul. If righteousness could come through the sacrifice of Jesus it certainly would have come by now.

Paul indicated that suffering was due to a deficit of affliction on Jesus's part.

Colossians 1:23-24 New International Version (NIV)

23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

Paul’s Labor for the Church
24 Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

But then again Paul also claimed that the gospel was already proclaimed to the whole of creation.

Which would fit with his belief that the end of the ageswas upon them.


1 Corinthians 10:11
These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.


Hebrews 10:36-37 New International Version (NIV)

36 You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. 37 For,

“In just a little while,
he who is coming will come
and will not delay.�